This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78
At the PlayStation 3 article there has been discussion and back-and-forth about what to list as the "Best Selling Game" in the info box. I was sure Wikipedia had some policy or guideline at least that frowned on the inclusion of information that changes too fast to be of use. I need to know the best way to approach this. Padillah ( talk) 12:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What happened to as of 2007, as of 2008, etc? Tempshill ( talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleting short pages used to automatically place the text "content was '<content of page>' [and the only contributor was <user>]" in the deletion summary field, but this no longer seems to be the case. Leaving the field blank or selecting nothing from the drop-down menu results in an empty summary. Is there a way to make this automatic summary appear, or has this feature been disabled? -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
When should an image be copied to wikimedia commons? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The principle of wikitext was to make editing articles as easy as possible. Unfortunately, some templates are needlessly arcane and serve to reintroduce complexity that wikitext sought to remove. There is new family of date/time templates that use free text dates. The following table is a list of this family of free text date templates and may be compared with those that do not have the dash in the name:
date | templates | wikitext | |
---|---|---|---|
Birth | {{
birth-date}}
|
{{
birth-date and age}}
|
{{Birth-date | April 3, 1903 }} |
Death | {{
death-date}} |
{{
death-date and age}} |
{{Death-date | April 3, 1903 }} |
other Start and End dates and/or time Space mission launch, decommissioning etc. |
{{
start-date}} |
{{
end-date}} |
{{Start-date | June 10, 1966 7:26pm }} |
wikitext | article | |
---|---|---|
Old | {{Death date and age|2008|1|11|1934|5|2|df=y}} | 11 January 2008 | (aged 73)
New | {{Death-date and age | 11 January 2008 | 2 May 1934 }} | 11 January 2008 | (aged 73)
Advantages of new version
The older templates despite their arcane syntax don't support any of these additional functions. Of course, folks may choose to use the older templates if they wish. The new templates offer a second option for easier and less restrictive authoring of dates.
Use of {{
birth-date and age}}
and {{
death-date and age}}
is currently recommended as best practice in the
Manual of Style (dates and numbers), as the former templates are generally regarded as needlessly complex by the MOSNUM community. The new templates are currently in use in over 1000 articles.
- J JMesserly ( talk) 02:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
How many rc take place every minute ? ava. value . User:Yousaf465 ( talk)
Quick question. I've been watching a steady increase in the size of a number of lists in one article, Spacetoon, of what appears to be the name of every single program that has played (or potentially will play) on this television channel, almost all added by a single editor. My question : is this considered acceptable practise in Wiki; that long lists of TV shows are displayed as they are here? Even when many of them already have their own article? The lists now appear to form the bulk of the material in the article. It doesn't seem useful to me. What's your opinion? Deconstructhis ( talk) 04:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I frequently look up statistics terms here, and notice that it doesn't help very much. the articles are written by, and apparently, for, people who already know the topic. Especially for elementary stats this is a problem, but even for instance, today when i looked up "Chow Test" it didn't give me anything a layperson might need in terms of context that might help understand why in the heck you might want to use a Chow Test! What are the possible grouping types? How do i know what a "breakpoint" is? My econometrics professor does the same thing. He is brilliant, but getting him to say why a test or statistic matters and what i might use it for is like pulling teeth. How can i know what to do with it without context? I find myself always wishing there was some context there to understand it. Telling me who the test is named for doesn't count as context! This is my sincere plea for the addition of contextual explanation for the statistics project pages. Have pity on those of us who must use statistics but didn't major in it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovewhatis ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to Promote my website on wikipedia, is is possible to do it like Google adword?? Someone kindly guide me. I have a website about [Google Adsense Tips| Tips for New Blogger| SEO| Drive Traffic Tips| Copyright Articals | Sitemap]. So I need to promote it. my website is <spam address removed Julia Rossi ( talk) 02:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiepk ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd welcome any comments -- DFS454 ( talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I was viewing random articles this morning. After several minutes I noticed that I had been presented with no less than 6 articles on towns or districts in Poland. Looking back through my browser's history I see that the article selector lead to Adamów, Witów, Ostrzeszewo, Garczyn, Niekazanice, and Grzybowo, out of a total of only 74 random articles. Was there some connection or is this just an odd coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixdenny ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Later the same day I tried again, and quickly hit on Laziska, Zalesie, Lubocie, Skocze, Bruszewo-Borkowizna, Wólka-Mogielnica, and Wesola, all obscure Polish towns, most are stubs obviously written using the same template and extracted from the Polish Wiki. So that is 13 Polish towns out of maybe 200 random articles. During the same time, I had *no* geographical hits from large areas such as South America, Canada, Africa, Russia, all of Asia, etc. One from Great Britain. A couple from the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.13.250 ( talk) 16:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find a noticeboard to discuss fair use, so I've come here. If this is the wrong place, could somebody point me to the correct place? File:Riste.jpg is from Commons, and is claimed to be the work of the uploader. But there is no evidence that the uploader is, in fact, the copyright holder, it looks like a posed studio photograph. Is this a valid use of fair use? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 05:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I see "Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchromatic_film"" in every page here. Change panchromatic film to an actual name of particular article. What is a purpose of telling me exact URL that I actually can see in an address bar of my browser? That meant for third party robots? But those robots will add filter for this phrase in no time. Just like they have filter for "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I mean, what is a an actual meaning of it? And convenience of having that thing in the end of every page for a Wikipedia audience? Vitall ( talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
class="printfooter"
CSS class, which is normally not displayed, visible. I'm sure that, with a few moments' thought about the words "print" and "footer" you can make a good guess as to
the actual purpose of that class and the text that it is applied to. ☺
Uncle G (
talk) 13:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)I'm proposing a competition to encourage more people to participate in new pages patrol. Come and participate, join Team A or Team B, have fun and help clear the new pages patrol backlog! ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The copypaste template contains the following sentence:"Please edit this article to remove any nonfree copyrighted content, attribute free content correctly, and be an original source." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Should it be changed to:"Please edit this article to remove any nonfree copyrighted content and attribute free content correctly."? Charvest ( talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Friends,
we just launched a new site called irishcentral.com for st. patricks day and it's an important resource for the irish community around the world. The founder Niall O'Dowd has a very good listing on the wikipedia. There was a great deal of press around the launch, and you will quickly find reference through a google search and news search on the quality of joournalism here.
Would you consider allowing a wikipedian to research and write our listing?
Thanks for your consideration.
Cheers, E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.151.216 ( talk) 19:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that many wikipedia users do not understand that the plural of cannon is cannon, not cannons. I see 'cannons' in many articles, and honestly it's starting to drive me absofuckinglutely crazy. Is there anyway I can spread awareness about this, beyond making a post on WT:MILHIST!?!? -- AtTheAbyss ( talk) 03:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I was reviewing the PROD list recently and came across this. An article was being PROD'd for containing no information beyond a basic definition. OK. But a review of the edit history reveals that the PROD'er is the one who removed all unsourced and unencyclopedic information (paraphrase) from the article (a month prior to the PROD). Now, I have no problem with that, either. But wouldn't etiquette dictate that the original content be displayed to give people reviewing the PROD the opportunity to find sources for the information? Should the edit history be reverted to the last version of the article that contained content, then PROD based on the unsourced/unencyclopedic rationale? am I babbling, or is this coming across? Vulture19 ( talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Some user created navigational templates of the Japanese local television stations, something like TV-hokkaido, TV-kanto, TV-kinki and TV-kyushuoki. However, they are, speaking in evil, looks ugly. And for TV-kanto, it is duplicated with Kanto TV. -- JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 05:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles on hundreds of reality TV "contestants" of very little notablity, who only appeared on one season and have not been seen in any form of media since, yet won't allow articles on popular songs by major artists like ABBA, just because they weren't singles? Retro Agnostic ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of putting a <span class="plainlinks">
tag around an external link, to disguise it to look like an internal link? Why does this ever need to be done?
Mike R (
talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]
does not show the external link icon. What is not a valid use is when a true external link is hidden in such a manner. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk - 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I was playing around with the new WikiRanks site and came across something weird. Can someone come up with an explanation for this? I can see how the periodic peaks and troughs are the result of students checking basic info, but am having problems coming up with an explanation of why wind and fire are so much less popular than earth and water. - Banyan Tree 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a polciy or a guideline for the use of loong quotes or excerpts of books in articles? Thanks, CENSEI ( talk) 01:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Nikolai Gogol will have his 200th birthday on 1 April 2009. Are there any preparations at Wikipedia to celebrate that, e.g. by putting him on the front page that day? 78.53.42.204 ( talk) 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or policy about when to use articles with acronyms? 'The DMV' or 'the FBI' sound right, but I rarely hear 'the NASA' or 'the NPR.' Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am a sysops from Hindi wiki. Till now we have been changing the featured picture monthly. Now we want to change it on weekly basis. Every sunday. Can anyone tell me about any automated template that keeps the picture for a week. Say e.g. for the daily basis change, we have the Aaj kaa aalekh (Todays feature paragraph) section, that has the template,
this searches for a new dated template, daily. & the old template, goes to archieve. Now for the monthly basis, we just have to remove {{CURRENTDAY}} portion. But what to do for the weekly, sunday to sunday change. Please suggest at the earliest. Its urgent.-- आशीष भटनागर ( talk) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Solved the problem, on my own. Hi wiki running on it.-- आशीष भटनागर ( talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Done
Hi. I am fairly new to this great Wikipedia, and I admit I'm prejudiced towards British English rather than American English .
And you may think that what I'm suggesting is a small point, which in some ways it is ... but the text I'd propose be changed is seen by every editor, every time they create an article.
If you go to an article that doesn't exist, for example
jasdhfljhasdfk, and click "create this article", a message automatically appears at the top. It says:
Now, to me, in that last sentence, the text "... will likely be deleted ..." is over-American, and I'd suggest it should be changed to "... will probably be deleted ...". This would read better for a British-English reader, whilst - I think I'm right in saying - still works fine for our US friends? Again, yes it's a small point but, as I said, it's seen by every editor, every time they create an article. Were the text in a template, I could be bold and change it. However, I don't think it's in a template, but somehow a function of the wiki software. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. Thanks. Trafford09 ( talk) 10:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Trafford09 ( talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC): Firstly, a big thank-you to all those who've offered a good spectrum of viewpoints, from both sides of the pond. The contributions seem to be dwindling now (but do please add your thoughts, no matter how late you are to the discussion). So, it's time to reflect. I seems to me that there is now a consensus that
This being so, if the perceived consensus remains as above after a day or so, then I'll undertake to follow this up on our behalf. I'm not too sure on WP protocol, but I imagine I'll need to raise it from an informal discussion to a formal WP-Proposal. Then I'll hope somebody knows how to make any necessary software change, to effect the proposed new wording. Thanks again to all contributors (and any further ones). Trafford09 ( talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
All now sorted - thx to all & finally User_talk:Cool3. Trafford09 ( talk) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello all! I hope this is in the right place! As per usual, through a long line of clicks and semi-thoughts ... and more clicks, I stumbled across the article for Npower (UK) and was highly surprised that the article doesn't criticise the company at all! They are at the bottom of a host of power company league tables, have had numerous run-ins with environmental types and are generally hated by a whole host of people! The talk page mentions one of these events (back in 2007) but nothing in the article history seems to have been added about it. Also, anything derisory that is added seems to be removed. I was wondering what the correct etiquette is to proceed? I know I should "Be Bold" and I can easily find sources for all of these criticisms but I didn't want to needlessly piss people off! I've written a bit on the talk page, but it doesn't seem like the article gets many edits, so I doubt it will be seen for a while! Anyway, any help is appreciated, sorry to ramble on! -- LookingYourBest ( talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The Vote on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone considered the copyright issues related to a common situation when someone want to have a copy of deleted article? (E.g. to "userfy" it)? Formally the deleted text has authorship. Delete or not it was released under a certain license and the text cannot be used in violation of this license. In other words, when a copy provided, it must go with the whole list of authors. If someone wants to use it for whatever purposes, they must be warned about the authorship/licensing.
It may be not a big deal, but recently I took part of deletion of a rather interesting and valuable original reseacrh, Motif of harmful sensation, and someone was interested in having a copy of this text. I am not sure whether the original contributors will be happy of their hard work (even if misplaced) will pop up elsewhere without their recognition. - 7-bubёn >t 17:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of people posting affiliate links for Amazon recently. Now it may be that they're not benefiting, having had a cookie planted on their machine, or they may be benefiting. In any case a quick search reveals 4,611 such links. Is there a robot that deals with such links ? -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
'Cause I really struggle to keep them separate in mind. -- AaThinker ( talk) 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this wikipedia, a source of funding for Norwegian wikipedia?
The reason I am asking, is that Norwegian wikipedia is at present promoting a competition (on the main page) that is a cooperation with the Norwegian Embassy in Tallin, and the Estonian embassy in Oslo.
(Quote: "Konkurransen er i samarbeid med Den norske ambassaden i Tallinn og Den estiske ambassaden i Oslo".)
Perhaps English wikipedia could arrange similar contests. If it is such a good idea.
Cheers, Litmus Today2 ( talk) 05:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is probably US Government public domain. Who has the software to download it and kill the watermark? Encyclopedic value for how the good ol' US of A is winning the war. Durova Charge! 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Founder of Wikipedia once said that he wished there was a biography for every person in the world on wikipedia. Does that mean i can create a page/biography on myself?
Missouri university has changed its web address from umr.edu to mst.edu There are 77 wikipedia articles which link to the old address. Could someone write a bot to change these, as links to the old address just produce the error message: "Address Not Found". Charvest ( talk) 10:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking a break for a few weeks to attend to family and academic obligations. I would really appreciate if the rest of you would buckle down and finish the Wikipedia by the time I get back. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a huge backlog at WP:Editor review that needs to be taken care of. Any ideas on how to get more reviewers? - down load | sign! 05:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt ( talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way to find a list of people who are watching a particular article? This will help me find out if an important article is not watched adequately.. -- Anshuk ( talk) 23:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a call for community input about a little corner of template talk page:
Display of date in Merge and Split tags: a discussion about enabling the display of the "date" parameter in all the merge/split templates, such as "Proposed since April 2009". Three propositions:
The change was briefly enabled on 10 templates then reverted and a discussion started: interested partie can continue at Template talk:Merge in sections "Date field broken" (talk side for #1–3) and "Please enable date display" (technical side for #2). — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How do i leave a link to an external website without leaving the entire hyperlink?
julcal—Preceding unsigned comment added by julcal ( talk • contribs)
Is there an organized effort to contact people listed in Wikipedia to ask them to contribute a photograph? It seems to me that people who depend on publicity (e.g. actors, authors, etc) would want to have a good photo representing them on Wikipedia, rather than a picture taken from a distance at a convention or lecture. Of course, the photo would have to be licensed appropriately, which may cause difficulties (e.g. perhaps it couldn't be a studio photo, but a picture they've had taken themselves). I'm sure other people have done this already: is the response typically positive or negative? (My apologies if I've missed something obvious.) -- ScottAlanHill ( talk) 03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Massive vandalism to the Leeds Bradford Airport article. cannot find history tab, no idea how to fix it. Thanks. (does this belong here, if not where?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.145.28 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, April 6, 2009
I've seen lots of mentions of wikipedia and potential COI editing in the news, TV et al, but this is the first time I've seen it mentioned in parliament [5]. Has anyone heard of anything similar before? Nil Einne ( talk) 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that many computing related articles seem to contain source code that is completely unreferenced and obviously written by Wikipedia editors. I feel that including code written by editors is completely against all Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:NOR. One might argue, that source code is an illustration of the article subject, much like self-taken photographs or self-made SVGs that are widely used in WP. But I think that still does not excuse us from ignoring very basic Wikipedia guidelines.
For examples of what I mean, take a look at [6]. Most of the articles do not mention where the source code is from. A specific example: Bellman-Ford algorithm. Please also note, that copying source code from a non-free source, such as a textbook, is a clear copyright violation. This is why I'd like to propose not including any source code in Wikipedia articles at all, unless it can be directly copied from a free reliable source. Offliner ( talk) 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(replies moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science#Source_code_written_by_editors, please reply there)
In the beginning of January there was a Signpost article on the Stanton project to create a simplified UI for beginning editors [7].
The Stanton Faq page is very unhelpfully on a Wikimedia wiki, so it's not possible to post additional questions on the discussion page. I have seen no further info since the signpost article, and would like to hear an update on what the current thinking is. This information is pertinent to development of templates on wikipedia.
{{
citation}}
)?In what time frame will #1 come out? #2? - J JMesserly ( talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea to help cut down on vandalism. Basically I'd like to design an algorithm that detects likely vandalism, and requires a trusted user (say, an admin) to approve the changes.
For example, if a proposed edit contains no recognizable dictionary words and wordcount is reduced more than 50%, kick it to an admin. Things along those lines. Basically, it'd entail reading a lot of vandal edits, identifying common elements, and implementing code to detect them.
There are three questions I have about this endeavor.
1.) Would such a filter be well received by the community? I'd be erring on the side of letting malicious edits through rather than restricting legitimate speech. 2.) Is there a central location vandalized pages are listed? Or would I need to download the wikidump and crawl it myself? 3.) Is wikipedia open to such contributions, or do they prefer we only improve articles?
Thanks for the information. I can be reached via my talk page, or at gregnorc@gmail.com
-GregNorc ( talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
English: Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is now accepting applications for scholarships to the conference. This year's conference will be handled from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The scholarship can be used to help offset the costs of travel and registration. For more information, check the official information page. Please remember that the Call for Participation is still open, please submit your papers! Without submissions, Wikimania would not be nearly as fun! -- Az1568 ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Could I ask Wikipedia editors to have a look at this proposal & let me know what they think, would they support it, what would they want in it or would they be totally against the idea etc.? Please let me know on my talk page or on here. Thanks. dottydotdot ( talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A proposal for a site that would allow people to submit articles they wished to be in Wikipedia but couldn't put in because they had a conflict of interest. Much of the time, these people want to put a neutral article about their notable company up, but can't. Wikipedia editors could then browse through these already made articles & add them to Wikipedia if they thought they were good. There would be no requirement to list the original author or site & editors could make as many or as few changes as they wished. It would be a paid for site, in that if you wanted to submit an article, it would cost you a small fee, less than £5. Editors who put an article on Wikipedia would also get paid for putting that article on.
"Advantages of a paid system"
Firstly, a percentage or revenue would be donated to a chosen charity, voted for by the readers & a percentage would also be donated to Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Having a paid system would stop spam & give people an incentive to write thorough, well researched articles rather than just putting rubbish up. It would also encourage editors to browse through & select articles.
There would be no problem with the payments, because it is not paying editors to submit specific articles. Any article that is submitted will be paid.
This would be a good way of increasing & improving Wikipedia's database, while negating a key criticism of Wikipedia.
dottydotdot ( talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has brought up a concern that this image is illegal and should be deleted. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made a chart comparing the rough number of Internet users who speak a particular language as their primary language to the size of the Wikipedia in that language, see:
It's fairly incomplete, but still interesting. Dcoetzee 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hallo, is the admin coaching project still active/in use? I was going to sign myself up for coaching, but then noticed that the unfulfilled requests were sitting around for many months without action. Thanks, tempodivalse [☎] 14:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Since many months, only three "coaches" continued "coaching". Considering the reputation of admin coaching, I'd advise you to not request coaching anyway. The page was marked as inactive, but it was removed. See latest archive (it was broken, repaired). Cenarium ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a Category:Industry by country but this only has 6 countries, and it is undecided whether to say “Industry in Fooland” or “Industries in Fooland” or “Industry of Fooland”. (this is not "about" policy, just asking what the policy is! Category is underpopulated, but should be standardised first! Perhaps “Industry in Romania” should replace both existing categories?
Category:Economy of the United Kingdom has subcategories for Banking, Energy, Mining and Tourism; but not for Manufacturing and/or Industries. While there are Company categories for a number of Industries, this does not seem to cover either individual factories or Government factories eg see Category:Royal Ordnance Factories or Category:Government munitions production in the United Kingdom. So perhaps "Industry in the United Kingdom"? Hugo999 ( talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
...for you to try out. They're for finding incorrect uses of needs-infobox and needs-photo parameters and can be accessed from here. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I still keep coming across issues where people falsely say "blogs can't be sources"--an out and out incorrect statement--I've whipped up Wikipedia:Blogs as sources/ WP:BLOGS as a quick reference distilled from RS & BLP policy pages to give a quick clue on how blogs are allowed to be used from certain websites, and how on what articles. Any feedback on the talk is appreciated there. rootology ( C)( T) 03:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I used MP as the shortcut prefix
[1]
[2] for “main page” since it is used in the main page’s source code, for example id="mp-topbanner"
[8]. I used the prefix with the following shortcuts which I need for my user page :
MP:TOP,
MP:OTD,
MP:TFP,
MP:WSP. The prefix is not intended to be a namespace, but simply a shortcut prefix for Main Page with the letters following mp representing a section of the main page. These shortcuts are useful, allowing for example one to go directly to the part of the main page that includes the section “Other areas of Wikipedia“. As I’ve already pointed out, mp is in the Source of the main page and there represents the main page. I’m using the shortcuts and I hope others will find them helpful also. For example, suppose you want to go directly to “today‘s featured picture” from the multilingual portal. You simply use the short cut.
Chuck Marean 09:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
As some of you may know, I've started an unofficial blog about Wikimedia projects (but inevitably focussing more on Wikipedia).
I would really appreciate it if you took the time to pop over, perhaps leave a comment or two... If you like what you see then please subscribe!
I definitely plan to involve the community with the creation of the blog's content - articles focussing on particular WikiProjects, for example. If you're at all interested in working with me, then please do not hesitate to contact me.
Cheers,
-- Heebiejeebieclub ( talk) 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see the history of the Dr Sushil Kumar article. Directorichr ( talk · contribs) continues to edit the article to a non-standard formatting of references. I keep reverting it back to a formatted version, and try explaining to the editor what's wrong with their edits, but they never respond and just keep reverting back. What's my best action? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Article has been nominated for deletion: see the discussion here. - Pointillist ( talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
New project-space page: Wikipedia:You might be Wikilawyering if...
Please edit, and enjoy. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.
So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.
So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?
On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:
Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.
VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!
Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...
Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair. Anti venin 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Due to a cross-posting this is also being discussed at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat ( talk) 14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I do not understand what you are doing. Look at this.
I feel certain that the WTC controlled demolition hypothesis is false, I mean, how could it be demolished? It would take days to prepare. That said, I do not understand why such a large group of editors is concerned with renaming the article, and deleting scientific information which is relevant to the article.
One fact we know about science is, that most scientific facts turn out to be wrong in the end. That's how science works: we do the best we can, find we were wrong, there is more to know, and move on. These partisan battles are unprofessional.
Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
In order to have an organized page centralizing all the tasks relating to biographies of living people, a WikiProject has been created. There are several areas in need of greater attention, each listed on the project page. This is a project-wide problem that needs everyone's attention. Please take a look and help where you can. لenna vecia 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is possible or plausible, but would there be a way to allow certain IPs to edit semi-protected pages? I know with dynamic IPs it's difficult, but if there is a way it would be smart. For example, see Special:Contributions/74.137.108.115 as someone who deserves it. -- 99.240.227.108 ( talk) 03:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
template on the talk page of the desired page. -
Porchcrop (
talk|
contributions) 03:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)If you are interested please check out the discussion on the talk page at Flag desecration. I might be wrong in my reasoning here but I think it is an interesting discussion. Steve Dufour ( talk) 05:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but can anybody delete these images at last?
I'm really tired by setting warning templates and watching how they are being removed. Panther ( talk) 08:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've cut out some articles from my watchlist. These were all put on either due to some sort of dispute or persistent vandalism. I'm not sure if there are any outstanding issues currently, but at the very least, I was wondering if any volunteers out there wanted to add these to their watchlist for at least the purpose of vandal fighting. Here they are A113 Alphabet murders Anti-Zionism East-West Schism Felipe Calderón Han Dynasty History of Japan Ion Antonescu List of The Future Is Wild species Memphis, Egypt Óscar Romero Shang Dynasty. Thanks.- Andrew c [talk] 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Whenever we have a decision to ban/indef-block a user, if the nom has a few diffs, most of the community just sticks with the nom. In fact, almost all of the banning discussions have resulted in the user-in-question banned/blocked. I feel that every Wikipedian of the community isn't speaking his/her own opinion. I think that some users, seeing the first few votes as "ban", don't express their own thoughts. And then a snowball effect happens. We need to change this. ( Yes we can!) Comments, please. M C 10 | Sign here! 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what percentage of articles get deleted within 10 days of being created? Within a month? Also, what percentage of all deletions does each deletion process (Prod, AfD, CSD) account for? I think it would be quite interesting to know. Any ideas? Cool3 ( talk) 13:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Until the 3rd of April this year Old Man River was a disambig page, linking to the Mississippi River, the song Ol' Man River and a couple of other artiles. On this date that page was overwritten by an article about an Australian musician. As I don't believe the artist is deserving of the primary topic title, I moved that article to Old Man River (musician) and replaced the resultant redirect with the old disambig page (with an entry for the musician) by using a copy and paste from the history of the page now about the musician.
Was this the correct way to restore the page? If not what should I have done? Also, I couldn't decide really where this message should have gone - for future reference have I got it right? Thryduulf ( talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I am launching a new forum for Wikipedia users. Please feel free to ask any questions, either on my talk page or to admin@thewikipediaforum.com.
The Wikipedia Forum aims to provide a place where all Wikipedia users can talk, suggest, comment & argue. Wikipedia itself provides no easy & accessible way of doing this-Wikipedia talk pages are confined to topics that directly relate to the article & conversation between multiple users is unwieldy & confusing. Mailing lists are also confusing & do not scale very well to large conversations between many people, resulting in full inboxes containing a large number of emails quoting the previous one & taking up 4 pages. Users are free to talk about anything with very little censorship, yet the aim is not to become a forum for Wikipedia haters. Instead it caters for everyone, from the average user confused about how to add templates, to administrators wishing to discuss complex articles in private. Totally free & requiring no public information that can be linked with your Wikipedia account(unless you wish it to be), there will be a minimal amount of moderation, but only to ensure there are no personal attacks & insults-criticism & complaints are perfectly welcome-they make Wikipedia better for all of us.
The forum is at www.thewikipediaforum.com. Please visit & join in.
Thanks! dottydotdot ( talk) 15:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that there should be a new project create called the Wikipedia Against Vandalism. Any users (reformed vandals and users with a clean history can join) that want to sign up and help can. Awareness should be raised about vandalism on Wikipedia. People don't seem to get that whatever they write only stays on Wikipedia for about a minute. That one minute of fun that they get just hurts the reliability and public opinion of Wikipedia. There should be a forum for everyone to talk about the subject and publicly state their reformation. The project will do other things, and administrators that have the main goal of blocking vandals can also join. Each administrator that blocks a vandal or users that refer a possible vandal to an admin, can log it into a list. We will update the number of blocked vandals everyday and it might possibly get put on the main page of Wikipedia. I am willing to create this project, but I need someone with a vast knowledge of Wikipedia (preferably an administrator) to guide me since I am very new to Wikipedia. Please spread the word about this proposed project. Thanks. -- Thenachoman ( talk) 13:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO too many biology-related articles have been given a severe anthropocentric bias, possibly by medics with limited awareness of general biology. Examples include:
I propose that top-level titles, without a scope in parentheses (e.g. Embryological development vs Embryological development (human)) be restricted to the most generalised coverage, with X (human) covering human-specific aspects. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Some items seem to be regularly being removed from my watchlist. Can anyone do this or does anyone have any suggestions as to how this may be happening. Is there a watchlist history anywhere? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this user's userpage OK? User:Zoomzoom1 -- seems like its an ad. I had a revert session against this person, so I am steering clear of this myself... User A1 ( talk) 06:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The page already exist: SimApp, and his userpage is also categorised here for example! In the same condition and categorization there are also the following userpages: User:Hedgehog0 and User:Peedeebee/LUSAS. Even assuming good faith it looks as some software developers have found a way to increase a bit their web's visibility. -- Bramfab ( talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Where can I find a list of the most edited articles on Wikipedia? Some cool guy ( talk) 04:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm searching for a Don DeLillo photo for my hu.wiki article that's not subject to copyright. All the pictures I looked at have the warning: may be subject to copyright. Can anyone find me one that's free? Thanks, 97.112.129.22 ( talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I am recently posting many of your definitions, to prove a point when I blog, as your articles are usually full of good information and news, as well as the fact that you don't usually have slighted information without there actually being a disclaimer about accuracy. I always cite your information and the page itself which draws people to look from my blog to your site. Recently I was looking up the definition of the words "liberal" and "conservative". Both used to be (up until recently) rather simple and easily attainable. Someone who is slighted towards the right obviously, has change the definition of conservative, for example, to redirect me to the word Conservativism. Then it explains who wrote what, what year, how that differs from one culture to another. First, I didn't want the definition of Conservatism, I wanted the old version which said Conservative. And, the complication of both articles makes it as if I was looking up automobile and had to sift through all the articles including when Henry Ford welded a crank for the first combustion engine vehicle. I don't need all that. Please try to keep things simpler, and on the definition of Conservative, it starts off saying that it is hard to define. I didn't need to hear that, just tell me what you know. liberal means to use more, conservative means to use less, you know, definition, not an encyclopedia of related and unrelated topics. One would think Karl Rove, the master of misinformation, somehow took over wikipedia. I find instead that they were revised by the same contributor who took it upon himself to get involved with misinformation about Joe Biden during the election. That is like allowing Adolph Hitler to define the will of the German people prior to World War II. If this trend continues I will have to find another site for information. Thank You Steve Walker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmildman ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is just a quick heads-up that Wikipedia Art has resurfaced on Wikipedia as Wikipedia Art Controversy 2009. It is nowhere near as bad as last time. It is a reasonably neutral article about the domain name dispute with Wikimedia, which does actually have a little RS coverage, but it probably needs an eye kept on it in case it turns into a coat rack for bringing back all the old stuff that got deleted before. The Wikipedia Art Wiki still says that they hope to get Wikipedia Art back onto Wikipedia. I have no idea whether this is them trying to achieve that, or something else entirely. My view is that it still fails notability however I am not going to tag it for deletion as I might be seen as having a COI in the matter following my not exactly glorious involvement original AfD. I have done a little cleanup on the article but avoided hacking it about too much for the same reason. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
MedCab currently (23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) has fourteen unadopted requests. Volunteers would be greatly appreciated. There are no particulary requirement, but people looking to help should check out their suggestions for volunteers. Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If the near side of the moon is full of Maria and always facig earth, whereas the farside doesn't have any Maria, doesn't that suggest that all the impact craters on the moon were formed by bits of the earth bombarding it at a very early stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.28.130 ( talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahoy! There's been a rather heated debate on Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) regarding whether Bill O's association with "conservative" should be included in the article introduction, and (if so) how that information should be presented. Unfortunately, we've only gotten one response from editors not previously involved in the dispute, and so I'm posting here in the hopes that more of the community will take a few minutes to read the RFC and respond. Full RFC may be found here. Thanks in advance! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just finished a tool for finding pages on Wikipedia needing images near a given location – tools:~alexz/coord. You can search near a coordinate, or search near another article (if the article is also geotagged). The results can be exported into a KML file and viewed in Google maps. Please leave bug reports/feature requests on my talk page for now. (P.S., if you know how to replicate the Google maps functionality with another online service, preferably something free like OpenStreetMap, please let me know.) Mr. Z-man 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeking some editorial help on an article this user is trying create. The sticking point is that the user is changing a redirect to another article. I left the user several automated messages using HG before I determined that they were most likely editing in misguided, but good faith. I left the user a personal message to try to explain the situation and they have simply recreated the article once more. I'm fairly certain they have not seen the message. I do not want to keep reverting the user until they are blocked as I do not see this as a useful solution. Any ideas? Thanks. Tide rolls 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The attention of all editors is drawn to a Request for Comment on a major issue for the English Wikipedia: a package of six proposals to move the ArbCom hearings process away from the loose, expansionary model that has characterised it until now, to a tighter organisational model. The RFC started Tuesday 29 April. Tony (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
In answering a {{helpme}}, it looks to me like this 'user' is a student project (from a comment on the talk page).
I would have thought the correct procedure here would be to raise it in Wikipedia talk:School and university projects; however, I raised another issue there over a month ago, and I note it's had no response; therefore, per guidelines on that project page, I'm mentioning it here in the hope that someone who knows about coordination with student project work might be able to take a look, engage in a dialogue with the users and see how we can work with them.
Cheers, Chzz ► 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is a general principle that a global consensus of the Wikipedia community overrides a local consensus of the editors of an article. (This seems to be the philosophy behind the third item of WP:CONEXCEPT and seemed to be the consensus in the events that led to WP:ARBMAC2. [9] [10])
There seems to be a local consensus at Talk:Autofellatio that in addition to a drawing of the sexual practice in question, the article must display a photo, which must not be moved away from the very top of the article. Is this at odds with what a global consensus would be? I believe that discussions at that talk page (including two RfCs, currently Talk:Autofellatio#RfC: Should the human image be moved down) may be skewed by self-selection bias:
Or perhaps I am simply much more old-fashioned than the typical Wikipedia editor? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 00:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
One of my Wiki-hobbies is finding overlinked articles ( WP:OVERLINK) and de-overlinking them. This task would be simplified by a tool that produces a simple list of all links in the article, e.g. running this tool on "Here is a sentence about first link, which has been the capitol of second link since third link declared it to be" would produce something like
This would greatly simplify and speed up spotting "low value" links.
Does such a tool exist? If not, where can I recommend that it be developed? --
201.37.230.43 (
talk) 01:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across an article that was a copyvio from zineziki.com. While on the site, I noticed that their logo contains the text "the independent media wikipedia". Additionally, their ZineWiki:About page states that their site runs "Wikimedia" software (should be MediaWiki).
ZineWiki is powered by the Wikimedia software meaning anyone, anywhere can contribute directly to the site at any time. ZineWiki aspires to the same standards of quality, accuracy and neutrality as Wikipedia. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia, please have a look at its guidelines before contributing. After that, take us to school!
They don't seem to make it very clear that they're unaffiliated with Wikipedia and the WMF. Radiant chains ( talk) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a ' mandatory' notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. Best wishes, -- Tinu Cherian - 10:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Seth Hilton is a redlink. There is nothing at Google to indicate that he's in any way a notable singer. And yet we have a discography for him at User:DrVince/Wish Down The Drain and User:Wish Down The Drain Song. The claims of being number one in Australia and number 2 in the US seem to be hoaxes. I'm aware that this is User space, but is this an appropriate use of User space? These users may be socks of User:Seth hilton, although User:DrVince has been deleted from that list. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometime back I think I saw a chart showing what percentage of anonymous IP edits came from each country. Can someone point me back to that chart? Thanks -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to draw people's attention to pages like this and this, and encourage every regular editor to create one. It's a difficult topic, but an important one I feel. Majorly talk 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this. Recently (I think yesterday) Watchlist quit watching talk pages. This has destroyed the basics of communication on wikipedia. If you have a comment on an article talk page you now have to specifically go to the page to see if there are responses. If there are conversations on your talk or somebody else's talk page where you have made a comment you have to manually go to that page to see if there are responses. There are no longer any flags to let you know there have been changes. I can't believe this would have passed any consensus test. I don't know where to register my protest. Americasroof ( talk) 13:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that people write "!vote" in AfD, RfA, and other discussions a lot instead of using the word "vote". The reason for that may be in a FAQ or guideline somewhere, but I've never seen it. It has led me to ponder the subject, and I've come up with two possible reasons that make the most sense to me. First, since decisions are made by consensus rather than through a democratic voting process, "my !vote" could be interpreted as "my non-vote" (assuming "!" means "not" as it does in several computer languages), or "my advisory vote" or my "non-binding strawpoll vote". The other reason might be a technical one. I installed a JavaScript kludge that added pretty icons in front of words like Keep and Oppose (as well as a lot of other places where it was annoying, thus I disabled it). Perhaps "vote" has a special meaning in some situations, and "!vote" doesn't. It's been bugging me, so I thought I'd just ask and stop living in the dark about it. It's probably been asked dozens of times before (though I couldn't find it after slogging through a few pages of search results), so feel free to just slap me with a trout and point me to an archived discussion is you prefer. :-) Thanks! — Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I think I will update the WP:!VOTE section to include a very brief summary of what you just explained so that others will have an easier time figuring that out. :-) (And thanks also for not trout slapping me.) — Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The page notability is structured as a disambiguation page, but has nothing to disambiguate as there is only one article of this title, Notability in Wikipedia. Should that article be moved there, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should the page be a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry, or is there some other useful function for it? Skomorokh 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I think we can all agree that feeding trolls is a bad idea. However, I haven't seen much agreement on just what that means. My question, for the community, is this: What kind of food does a troll want, and how do we avoid giving them that?
The question might be easy to answer if there were a clear test to distinguish trolls from non-trolls. Thus, that's also a question: How can we tell when someone's trolling, rather than trying to genuinely ask a question or make a good-faith edit? What's worse: false positives or false negatives?
I've seen little guidance in policy or agreement from the community on these questions. Therefore, I'm asking, and this seems to be a good place to start. Opinions? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea: Couldn't we do advertisement on Wikipedia like google adsense. The money - may be several million dollars per month - we could use, to buy OLPCs, to spend to schools in third world ? Or support any education-topics in third world. For these OLPCs we could create DVDs which contain Wikipedia. At the moment only people with internet-connection can read wikipedia and can use all these free information in the web. But there are still a lot of people on earth, which don't have any internet and any computer, which can't take part on that. Wouldn't it be a logic consequence, that we try to let join all people on earth on these wonderful new free information ? 95.114.122.39 ( talk) 23:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Pond weed - redirects to Elodea when typed in thje search box. "Elodea is native to North America". Other countries have native pond weed too.
Leading indicator - redirects to Index of Leading Indicators "The Index of Leading Indicators is an American economic index". Other countries have leading indicators too. There is an article called Leading indicators but shouldnt the correct name for the article be in the singular? In the same way that it's Interest rate rather than Interest rates? 78.145.24.191 ( talk) 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Proposed mergers has a backlog - many mergers have very few comments, could folks make some more and maybe alert appropriate wikiprojects? And some admins close some? Will be back later. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
On May 7, there was a brief outage, during which I tried to access Wikipedia. The page returned was the usual "Wikipedia has a problem" page. Usually, I disregard it, but this time I decided to view the page source.
The page contains a generic notice of a problem with the servers, and a Google search box. This is not a problem. However, the Google logo is served from Google's servers, which is a problem. (Specifically, the file " http://www.google.com/logos/Logo_40wht.gif".) This allows Google to record an entry into its logs every time I access Wikipedia during a server outage. The Wikimedia privacy policy regarding IP addresses states "When a visitor requests or reads a page [...] The Wikimedia Foundation may keep raw logs of such transactions, but these will not be published..." There is no mention that external parties will also record this information, or how they will treat that information.
I wanted to get the community's opinion about this. I think the easiest thing to do is either replace the logo with plaintext, or host the logo on a Wikimedia server. (I have no problem with the search box, so long as it is explicitly clear that the transaction will be processed by Google, because at that point I can make the decision.) Ideas? Mind matrix 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just published an up-to-date look at the state of article-name disambiguation via the use of brackets; it include the most commonly used terms, national biases and the trends since the last report on the topic, January 2007.
You can view the report's introduction or jump straight to my findings. I would be especially happy to see others editing the pages, drawing their own conclusions or offering historical perspective - this is a wiki, after all. It's very much a work in progress, and if anyone has any questions, I am watching all the relevant pages. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Im wanting to add history Of the New Zealand Miniature Fox terrier How is this done? Is there anywhere where I can get help to write it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzminfoxys ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I know I've brought this up before, but I didn't get any response last time. ANY. So, I'm going to post this question again:
Are there any WikiProjects that care about talk pages of redirects? Or where there's no significant history to the talk page?
For purposes of this discussion, "significant" excludes vandalism/non-constructive edits, pages with nothing more than templates and whitespace, and edits of the theme "this is the same as X, it should be merged/redirected to there".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaey ( talk • contribs)
(e/c) There are several WikiProjects which, for various reasons, actively tag redirects within their scope. I cannot speak for other projects, but at WikiProject Articles for creation we like to keep track of the redirects that we create on behalf of unregistered users. According to Category:Redirect-Class articles there are likely to be 124 projects which use Redirect-Class (although some of these may have followed other projects rather than actively choosing to ...). Therefore I don't think it is helpful to exclude templates in your definition of "significant", because these banners may be considered important by the projects. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I'm moving the discussion to a centralized location -- User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Please provide further input there. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all you do, you've helped me a lot! I really appreciate everyone that helps out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.92.170 ( talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This has been brought up a couple of other times, but has not been addressed: A random article function that works within user-defined criteria would be most welcome. For example, a user could see a random featured article, or a random psychology-related stub, or a random music-related good article. This would allow those who want to improve Wikipedia to search for stubs and start-class articles that are in their field of expertise, and allow researchers to find good information on a particular subject. Of course the basic, truly random function should remain available. — Jch thys 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently proposed a bot and it looks like it will likely be approved. However, it was mentioned that I post here to ensure that the wider community agrees with the proposed use and function of the bot. All comments, for and against, the use of the bot would be much appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrilBot (not here!). A trial has been completed so you can look over the bot's contributions. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You have provided me with so much important information, and i appreciate it a lot! thank you every volunteer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.92.170 ( talk) 20:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to ask this... I just created two articles to redirect to the Marmorkrebs article, Marbled crayfish and Marble Crayfish (the common names for the pest). Noting that I screwed up the naming of the latter, I "moved" it to Marble crayfish. Problem is, this creates a double-redirect, which apparently stops the redirect working. How do I clean this up? -- PaulxSA ( talk) 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I edited all templates in Category:User js. That job was long overdone.
In this category there are two sets of templates ("js" and "JS"). The "js"-templates call the user a "coder" or "programmer" of JavaScript. The "JS" templates call the user a "user" of Javascript.
I feel 2 sets of templates is too much. I'd keep the "JS" set. (It would have to be renamed "js" because that is the default for language userboxes.) I think keeping the "js" set is the most practical and correct solution.
I'd like to know if there are more people who feel this way. Debresser ( talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I nominated them for deletion here. Debresser ( talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone complete the archive of the talk page? I've been accused of vandalism for archiving a talk page. File talk:H1N1 map.svg, and File talk:H1N1 map.svg/Archive 1. I left the appropriate message in the edit comments ("archive"). 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
See this story by journalist Thomas Crampton. Have our references to the newspaper been compromised? [11] [12] [13] Is there anything we can do about it? Skomorokh 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've included one of the above as an example at Template:Cleanup-link rot/why, along with an explanation of how, as a proper full citation instead of a bare URL, it is still possible today to retrieve the article. Feel free to fix the article that you obtained the bare URL from. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A bot could easily archive all cited web pages using WebCite. (Of course there is no guarantee that they don't go offline, but it would be a good start. The coolest thing would be an own archival service for Wikipedia, but I suppose that would be too much legal trouble.) -- Tgr ( talk) 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Today, I ran into the first conflict I've really ever had on Wikipedia. I Stumbled onto a flame war while vandal hunting. I believe I handled it as best I could and would like some opinions on how I did. After placing the warnings and using WP:TROUT, one was deleted and was given a response and insults on My talk page. I then reported the matter too Wp: Wikiquette alerts. Overall, I felt I handled the matter maturely and thoughtfully. Thoughts? -- Skater ( talk) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons now has (over) 4,444,444 files, so here's a big toast to you all! Of course, some of these files will be deleted due to copyright violations and various other issues, but for every deleted file, there will be ten new files to take their place! :D -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 01:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done indeed to the admins who caught the fake quotation added to the article on French composer Maurice Jarre hours after his death March 28. It appears that en.WP is stalked by lazy journalists who will lift anything from the Internet without checking. See The San Fransisco Chronicle. Tony (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Per the required "spamming" of venues, I would like to bring attention to my nomination for the Bot Approval Group, which may be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Nakon. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to let you know about Wikimedia Conference Japan. This is a local version of the Wikimania conference in Japan. It is scheduled to be held sometime during 21-23 November this year in Tokyo, Japan (most likely to be one-day long). The details are being worked out at meta:Wikimedia Conference Japan and the mailing list, and the relevant translations are provided in meta:Wikimedia Conference Japan/en, meta:User:Makotoy/Wikimedia Conference Japan. Although a major potion of the participants is expected to be Japanese, we would like to have non-Japanese speaking presenters and/or audiences as much as possible. For example comparison between different language editions would be a great enlightenment to largely monolinguistic Japanese users. Please feel free to contact us in the talk pages or through wikimail. We are grateful if you could help us spread the word about this conference (translation into different languages, advertisement suggestions, etc.) regards, -- Makotoy ( talk) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to remind everyone about our WP:Requests for feedback page. I generally view it as a very lightweight, informal peer review process. I've had it watchlisted ever since I found it several months ago, and I try to respond to as many requests as I can. There's usually 3 or so posts per week, on average, and the users are generally newbies. Its a great way to start helping them and getting them on-track with MOS, policies, etc. Reviewers have been in a demand there ever since I've stumbled across it, but lately its becoming worse. Requests are being archived without any answers... So I decided to make a plea here for more helpers :-) There are currently a couple unanswered ones in the most recent archive, as well as all the requests (I think 4 or 5) on WP:FEED itself. It doesn't take the most experienced editor to answer feedback requests, I started after being around here for 6 months or so. There's also a help page for how to answer requests. I hope this is the right venue for this post, I didn't know where else to put it. Killiondude ( talk) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Redwood_National_and_State_Parks&action=history
Wikipedia is losing the fight against vandalism. The community relies too much on bots to detect and fix it. The downside of bots is, that there are so many of them and if the wrong one wins the race, the others only look on the last edit which is legitimate as it came from a trustworthy bot. Obviously not enough real people use their watch list to cover even the featured articles and check article histories. -- h-stt !? 07:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen,
I submit, for your approval, a new application for all you WikiAddicts out there -- WikiBiff.
You know it's happened to you -- someone left a message for you on your user talk page. Normally, the next browse to another page on Wikipedia would have alerted you to the new message, but you weren't on Wikipedia at the time -- you were off typing up some paper in Word or playing some flash game on the numerous websites that have flash games on them. You finally saw the message, five hours later, and you realized that the person who left you the message went to bed 15 minutes after they left you the message, sorely disappointed that you never answered them.
Now those days are over, because now WikiBiff is here! WikiBiff will sit silently in your system tray, and alert you with a friendly balloon whenever you have new messages waiting for you! Multiple accounts on the same Wiki site? NO PROBLEM! Multiple accounts across multiple Wiki sites? NO PROBLEM! Just plug your account info into WikiBiff and relax!
Now, on a more serious note, it's 8:25 AM here, and I've been up all night finishing this up, so I'm going to wait on doing things like getting Wiki pages set up for it until later. Also, I'll make the disclaimer -- THIS IS A BETA-QUALITY PROGRAM. However, all the same, I'd appreciate having people who are curious try it out, tell me if it works, and give me their feedback on it. While I await SourceForge to approve the project, I have the binary temporarily posted to
http://mikaey.dlinkddns.com:8080/WikiBiff.exe
https://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?group_id=262865&filename=WikiBiff-0.1.exe&a=25358567 , and the source at
http://mikaey.dlinkddns.com:8080/WikiBiff.zip
https://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?group_id=262865&filename=WikiBiff.zip&a=98717785 . System requirements (I think) are a Windows 2000/XP/Vista computer with the .NET Framework 3.5 installed.
And if you tell me someone else already did this, after I searched all over for it, and spent all this time writing it, I'm going to be really mad. :-P
Enjoy! Matt ( talk) 13:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Malaysia, scroll to the bottom and expand all the navigation boxes. Do we really need every article to link to every other? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you remove most of them. I suggest that "Languages", "International membership", "monarchies", "government" and at least one of the three "countries..." templates go. It might be sensible to suggest this at Talk:Malaysia first and see if there is any opposition.- gadfium 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that since we have many navboxes people think there should be navboxes for everything. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Should an article on an author consist mainly of quotes from book reviews of his books? This is the situation at Frederick Sontag. I think people come to an article to find the basic facts on a person, in this case, not to read other people's opinions. Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Link in the Box
directs to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result instead of http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result. The soft redirect is not an appropriate solution in my eyes. There should not be a technical article in the article namespace. Concerns other language versions too-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 08:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
wikipedia still cites it most probably more than any other source.
wtf. it's the british national channel. nothing more, nothing else.
e.g. try hard to find the ratio of articles ridiculing the french over those that don't.
similarly the CIA info, wtf. -- AaThinker ( talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
this is americanbritish-centrism to the bone folks.
What do you think about this:
I'm working on an article and the subject of the article falls under 5 stub types. As I don't really want 5 stubs to show up on the article (the sub list would be longer than the article info), is there a way to hide the stub comment but still have the stub be active (not using a hidden comment)? I haven't been able to find any info in a short search. Thanks. OlYeller Talktome 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I felt like this was a more appropiate place to put this comment (taken from the Wikipedia talk:Village pump), so.... anybody has an opinion about it? - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ... _ΞΞΞ_ . -- 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Just pick one stub template. The stub sorting is not very important anyway. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
One has to feel this has become a blistering hive of stupidity. In the past month I've been told:
And the list goes on. Combined with the closing issues - MER-C is hppy to overrule consensus at the drop of a hat, so it's impossible to know if your nomination will pass or not - I think this process is badly broken, and needs a major overhaul, or at least an injection of sane reviewers. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I just started False title (English usage), which is about phrases such as "United States Deputy Marshal Jim Hall said Tuesday that fatally wounded Lawrence County Sheriff Gene Matthews told him that fugitive tax protester Gordon W. Kahl was dead before other law enforcement officials started shooting." (Reed, Roy (1987), Titles That Aren't Titles, retrieved 2009-05-23. According to that site, a version of the article appeared in the New York Times, July 5, 1987, p. 31. The sentence is quoted from the Arkansas Gazette.)
Unfortunately, everything I found about these phrases criticizes them; maybe only the people who dislike them care enough to comment. (Full disclosure: I agree with every criticism.) So I couldn't even find an NPOV title for the article. This construction is massively popular here, so I'm hoping someone will know a source that approves of or justifies the construction or has a better name for it. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Commedia all'italiana. Can I understand this as Italian filmcomedy or a subgenere of that? -- Ezzex ( talk) 12:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.41.42.73. -- Wavelength ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Maintenance categories are often called Category:Articles with problem X from/since Month Year. As you can see on User:Debresser/Monthly maintenance categories (which I created for certain wikignome activities), an absolute majority of the maintenance categories uses "from". But not all. I propose that we make that all. Not because "from" is intrinsically better than "since" in my view, but for the sake of having a clearly defined housestyle. Debresser ( talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That is more or less the way I expected it would have to be. Note that this includes extensive work, because there are many categories with "since". I'd be willing to work on it seriously, but I am no admin, and because many of the templates involved are protected, I'd need to find an admin willing to actively and operatively work together with me on this. Debresser ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to see the monthly categories for Category:Categories for deletion included in this standardization. -- Pascal 666 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this change was made to the CfD categories in violation of the established process to change category names. Since when did the pump become the place to override guidelines and policies? Did anyone even think that if you are going to violate the established process to rename categories you might ask their first? After all many people do not follow discussions her because the volume make it near impossible to see new items or to follow a discussion. I think at the very least this needs to be brought there intermediately for a discussion. I will not be following or responding here but will expect a discussion to be started there. The admins involved should clearly be considering the appropriateness of their actions in out of process deletions. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The Anglo-Zanzibar War was the shortest war in history, 40 minutes, according to the Random article I just read. It seems to me that this is worthing of a DYK nomination, but the process of doing such a nomination seems too hard for me to do this late in the evening. Anybody else?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in posting a new article entitled Church of Civilization. It is essentially a description of a Church which I designed and created as a sort of philosophical exercise a few years ago and of which I am a legally ordained minister.
It is interesting and topical because the church has sound historical reasons for recognizing same sex marriage as a sacrament. This is completely tangential to the main purpose of the church, simply an accident of history.
I began to post an article but found that the free file hosting site where I have posted historical materials (the record of posts in the philosophical forum which led to its design), the church design document itself and other materials was on the blacklisted list.
Now, I realize that this might seem like shameless self-promotion. I suppose it would be except that the church design is completely free to anyone to use completely independent of me.
It is both a real legal church with at least one legally ordained minister and an interesting experiment in the relationship between church and state.
I lost all my original article because I could not save it. When I tried it was dumped because of the blacklisted links and all my original work was lost.
Now, is it worth my time to redo my work, incorporate the lengthy details of the church including creed, reading schedule, calendar, holy days, rituals, prayers, and sacrements, all of which are in the church design document, or is it the kind of thing which will automatically be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Huff ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As I have no clue where to report this (It doesn't really fit into the 3RR page). There is a struggle going on between people who think every song by a band deserves a separate article, and people who redirect these articles back to the artist/album pages. I really have no big opinion on this, it was just something I kept comming across using Huggle, see here for some of the reverts/edits. Sitethief ( talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there somewhere that I can get guidance about something that changes all of the time and how often this should be updated. In particular, an IP is updating the United States public debt biweekly and I wonder: is that a good idea? PDBailey ( talk) 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!
Maedin\ talk 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just had to share. In my textbook on Napoleon, the following passage appears, describing how he became First Consul of France: A new plebiscite was held and the people were asked to agree to the simple question, 'Should Napoleon Bonaparte be consul for life?' Men – and it must be remembered that the plebiscites only sought male opinion – were simply asked to sign their names in 'yes' or 'no' columns; there was no notion of a secret ballot. Men sometimes appended comments to their votes and, in 1802, these were largely positive. 'The man who has given us peace, religion and order in such a short space of time,' declared one Parisian, 'is the most capable of perpetuating these achievements'.
And it just suddenly struck me... that was an RfA! We're still using Napoleonic techniques to select our admins. This isn't a criticism, it's just one of those shock-modern-times-are-just-like-the-olden-days moments one gets when studying History. Pardon my little excited outburst! ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's an iPhone app for pedia editors to more easily browse talk pages & make edits etc. If not, anyone feel like making me one?!! dottydotdot ( talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To prevent spoilization, I suggest that we should remove the endings and/or certain climaxes that declare a movie done. The articles on Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes were deleted/redirected to prevent a similiar situation. People who read an article on a movie that they haven't seen yet might accidentally spoil the movie for themselves. We should just give them what they need to know about the movie before they see it, rather than give them the ending as well. I have done this on some of the movie articles that I created as well. Would this idea work? Ryanbstevens ( talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Worrying about spoiling people ain't our concern? Well this ain't the first time that an idea or move like this was made. Personally, i think that there's a lot of our policies that need to be changed. The responses made to this means that we should restore those episode articles. Also, i did it on articles that i created, rather than other articles. Additionally, what's the difference between the redirected Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes that were redirected to prevent spoilization, and the reaction that you made on this topic? I'm not saying that i disagree, but i'm just saying that it wasn't the first time that similiar actions were done (by other users over episode articles). What's the main purpose of this action? Your response is clearly like the guy in the Blockbuster online commercial, who manages to look at the couple's movies and he tells them how each of the movies ended. What's wrong about being like a cinema advertising outlet? Besides the fact that we're not one? Or can we find a way to hide the endings somehow, and those who have seen the movies can scroll down and read on? Or is that impossible? Ryanbstevens ( talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
See: [14] [15] [16]. The outside forums are: http://toolserver.org/~bjelleklang/pjirc/ and http://widget.mibbit.com/?settings=89dd50fb10ed1aa09dc3296cf5cf7177&server=irc.freenode.net&channel=%23wikipedia-en-help&autoConnect=true&nick=ZMIB_%3F%3F%3F%3F&noServerMotd&noServerNotices. I would object to this practice 1) it is just one more thing to confuse a newbie, and 2) it excludes the wider community from ensuring the newbie is properly assisted if advice is given on the forum. Thoughts? -- 64.85.210.19 ( talk) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Interested in listening to some beautiful music? Want to close your eyes and travel history and time? Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates is for you! Whether you want to simply review the proposals of others, or to search Commons' extensive collection of music to find something by your favourite (public domain) composers, featured sounds can use your help.
Come and join us today!
Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a question and not sure where to post it, but this seemed the most likely. I see many places where Wikipedia says "This is a stub, you can make it better by expanding it...." or wording similar to that effect. But, then I see where photo galleries are being removed. The Gallery that used to be in Butterflywas a good divisional display of the main branches of this insect family. Why was it removed? I had 9 images in it, but all the images were helpful. It seems to me that Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot by asking that articles be expanded, then when they are, somebody comes back in and cuts them back down. I don't know about any of you, but my encyclopedias all have Galleries of images in them. My question is this: Why are the Galleries being removed? Isn't an encyclopedia a visual tool? Why remove the pictures? Why not just convert everything to sythesized speech and do away with all the visuals - text and images? I see policies apparently being interpreted in different places on Wikipedia in different manners. What am I missing? HaarFager ( talk) 16:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that allot of acronyms are being used on this Wikipedia. Its quiet confusing from time to time, especial if there is no link or proper context included. Is there a list of commonly used acronyms available? That would make things allot easier for people who are new, especially if they are used to other Wikipedias where acronyms are less used. I would also like to make a point to put some context or a linked acronym when you DO use them to make things easier for those that are not (yet) incrowd enough to know them all. Sitethief ( talk) 11:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Or WP:ABC for fun ;-) ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
[[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]
and similar. Once you start to sign your name on paper documents with ~~~~, you know it's a problem...As of now Mohamed Altoumaimi redirects to the Bernoulli numbers article, yet there is no mention of him anywhere in the article. I am asking if this is enough to merit his own article. I'm sure there is more on this kid, but I just happened to see him on the main page of yahoo, and came to see if wikipedia had more info. I don't want to start an article that isn't notable, and while I know the WP:NOTABILITY policies, I'm really not sure if this qualifies. If given the OK, I would be happy to write the article. Drew Smith What I've done 06:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just make a little try on the Portal:Lyon. I change all the design, to make it possible to see rounded corner in different sections. But only, people using Firefox can see them. So take a look and write me a message if you like this design. Binnette ( talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A comment above reminded me, that there was a questionarie last year about Wikipedia users that we could fill if we wanted. I think it was conducted by Amsterdam university or something. Does anyone know what the status of that study is? When will we have the results? Offliner ( talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am a researcher in the GroupLens lab at the University of Minnesota. As part of our work within Wikipedia, we are conducting a study in which we have developed an interface modification that is designed to help users work together more effectively. The interface modification makes a minor change to Wikipedia's interface for reverting other editors. If you wouldn't mind giving it a try, we'll be very interested in your feedback. See User:EpochFail/NICE. -- EpochFail ( talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Category:Wikipedians by access to offline sources as a way of tracking which users have access to certain offline sources. I realize that if we were to list all of the source we have access to, it would get jumbled and useless. As such, if you're interested, perhaps list only the sources you find particularly useful. If enough users do this, it may become a very handy way to find editors with whom to collaborate or seek second opinions. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen quite a bit of fragmented discussion about this topic, so I wanted to get all comments out in the open. Are there are reasons why people would want headline levels to jump from 2 to 4, 2 to 5, or 3 to 5, etc, etc? - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 15:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a discussion with Jarry1250 about this in relation to the Albert Vanloo article edit [17] made by Jarry's LivingBot. I think it should be left to the editor to decide what level of heading is appropriate (both aesthetically and functionally) to the sections of an article. (===H3=== in particular can be difficult to use because of its relatively large appearing size.) AFAIK MOS:HEAD does not say heading levels should be consecutive. It merely notes that a series of headings are available. (Please tell me if I have missed anything here.) As always it's important that bots are not used to make controversial edits. -- Klein zach 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Jarry1250 has now started a new discussion about this in his userspace and made it into an Rfc, see User:Jarry1250/RFC. Was that a good idea? Wouldn't it have been better to keep the debate in one, centralized place? (Also Jarry1250 hasn't put any notice here about his new consultation. . . .) -- Klein zach 05:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78
At the PlayStation 3 article there has been discussion and back-and-forth about what to list as the "Best Selling Game" in the info box. I was sure Wikipedia had some policy or guideline at least that frowned on the inclusion of information that changes too fast to be of use. I need to know the best way to approach this. Padillah ( talk) 12:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What happened to as of 2007, as of 2008, etc? Tempshill ( talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleting short pages used to automatically place the text "content was '<content of page>' [and the only contributor was <user>]" in the deletion summary field, but this no longer seems to be the case. Leaving the field blank or selecting nothing from the drop-down menu results in an empty summary. Is there a way to make this automatic summary appear, or has this feature been disabled? -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
When should an image be copied to wikimedia commons? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The principle of wikitext was to make editing articles as easy as possible. Unfortunately, some templates are needlessly arcane and serve to reintroduce complexity that wikitext sought to remove. There is new family of date/time templates that use free text dates. The following table is a list of this family of free text date templates and may be compared with those that do not have the dash in the name:
date | templates | wikitext | |
---|---|---|---|
Birth | {{
birth-date}}
|
{{
birth-date and age}}
|
{{Birth-date | April 3, 1903 }} |
Death | {{
death-date}} |
{{
death-date and age}} |
{{Death-date | April 3, 1903 }} |
other Start and End dates and/or time Space mission launch, decommissioning etc. |
{{
start-date}} |
{{
end-date}} |
{{Start-date | June 10, 1966 7:26pm }} |
wikitext | article | |
---|---|---|
Old | {{Death date and age|2008|1|11|1934|5|2|df=y}} | 11 January 2008 | (aged 73)
New | {{Death-date and age | 11 January 2008 | 2 May 1934 }} | 11 January 2008 | (aged 73)
Advantages of new version
The older templates despite their arcane syntax don't support any of these additional functions. Of course, folks may choose to use the older templates if they wish. The new templates offer a second option for easier and less restrictive authoring of dates.
Use of {{
birth-date and age}}
and {{
death-date and age}}
is currently recommended as best practice in the
Manual of Style (dates and numbers), as the former templates are generally regarded as needlessly complex by the MOSNUM community. The new templates are currently in use in over 1000 articles.
- J JMesserly ( talk) 02:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
How many rc take place every minute ? ava. value . User:Yousaf465 ( talk)
Quick question. I've been watching a steady increase in the size of a number of lists in one article, Spacetoon, of what appears to be the name of every single program that has played (or potentially will play) on this television channel, almost all added by a single editor. My question : is this considered acceptable practise in Wiki; that long lists of TV shows are displayed as they are here? Even when many of them already have their own article? The lists now appear to form the bulk of the material in the article. It doesn't seem useful to me. What's your opinion? Deconstructhis ( talk) 04:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I frequently look up statistics terms here, and notice that it doesn't help very much. the articles are written by, and apparently, for, people who already know the topic. Especially for elementary stats this is a problem, but even for instance, today when i looked up "Chow Test" it didn't give me anything a layperson might need in terms of context that might help understand why in the heck you might want to use a Chow Test! What are the possible grouping types? How do i know what a "breakpoint" is? My econometrics professor does the same thing. He is brilliant, but getting him to say why a test or statistic matters and what i might use it for is like pulling teeth. How can i know what to do with it without context? I find myself always wishing there was some context there to understand it. Telling me who the test is named for doesn't count as context! This is my sincere plea for the addition of contextual explanation for the statistics project pages. Have pity on those of us who must use statistics but didn't major in it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovewhatis ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to Promote my website on wikipedia, is is possible to do it like Google adword?? Someone kindly guide me. I have a website about [Google Adsense Tips| Tips for New Blogger| SEO| Drive Traffic Tips| Copyright Articals | Sitemap]. So I need to promote it. my website is <spam address removed Julia Rossi ( talk) 02:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiepk ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd welcome any comments -- DFS454 ( talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I was viewing random articles this morning. After several minutes I noticed that I had been presented with no less than 6 articles on towns or districts in Poland. Looking back through my browser's history I see that the article selector lead to Adamów, Witów, Ostrzeszewo, Garczyn, Niekazanice, and Grzybowo, out of a total of only 74 random articles. Was there some connection or is this just an odd coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixdenny ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Later the same day I tried again, and quickly hit on Laziska, Zalesie, Lubocie, Skocze, Bruszewo-Borkowizna, Wólka-Mogielnica, and Wesola, all obscure Polish towns, most are stubs obviously written using the same template and extracted from the Polish Wiki. So that is 13 Polish towns out of maybe 200 random articles. During the same time, I had *no* geographical hits from large areas such as South America, Canada, Africa, Russia, all of Asia, etc. One from Great Britain. A couple from the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.13.250 ( talk) 16:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find a noticeboard to discuss fair use, so I've come here. If this is the wrong place, could somebody point me to the correct place? File:Riste.jpg is from Commons, and is claimed to be the work of the uploader. But there is no evidence that the uploader is, in fact, the copyright holder, it looks like a posed studio photograph. Is this a valid use of fair use? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 05:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I see "Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchromatic_film"" in every page here. Change panchromatic film to an actual name of particular article. What is a purpose of telling me exact URL that I actually can see in an address bar of my browser? That meant for third party robots? But those robots will add filter for this phrase in no time. Just like they have filter for "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I mean, what is a an actual meaning of it? And convenience of having that thing in the end of every page for a Wikipedia audience? Vitall ( talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
class="printfooter"
CSS class, which is normally not displayed, visible. I'm sure that, with a few moments' thought about the words "print" and "footer" you can make a good guess as to
the actual purpose of that class and the text that it is applied to. ☺
Uncle G (
talk) 13:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)I'm proposing a competition to encourage more people to participate in new pages patrol. Come and participate, join Team A or Team B, have fun and help clear the new pages patrol backlog! ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The copypaste template contains the following sentence:"Please edit this article to remove any nonfree copyrighted content, attribute free content correctly, and be an original source." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Should it be changed to:"Please edit this article to remove any nonfree copyrighted content and attribute free content correctly."? Charvest ( talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Friends,
we just launched a new site called irishcentral.com for st. patricks day and it's an important resource for the irish community around the world. The founder Niall O'Dowd has a very good listing on the wikipedia. There was a great deal of press around the launch, and you will quickly find reference through a google search and news search on the quality of joournalism here.
Would you consider allowing a wikipedian to research and write our listing?
Thanks for your consideration.
Cheers, E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.151.216 ( talk) 19:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that many wikipedia users do not understand that the plural of cannon is cannon, not cannons. I see 'cannons' in many articles, and honestly it's starting to drive me absofuckinglutely crazy. Is there anyway I can spread awareness about this, beyond making a post on WT:MILHIST!?!? -- AtTheAbyss ( talk) 03:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I was reviewing the PROD list recently and came across this. An article was being PROD'd for containing no information beyond a basic definition. OK. But a review of the edit history reveals that the PROD'er is the one who removed all unsourced and unencyclopedic information (paraphrase) from the article (a month prior to the PROD). Now, I have no problem with that, either. But wouldn't etiquette dictate that the original content be displayed to give people reviewing the PROD the opportunity to find sources for the information? Should the edit history be reverted to the last version of the article that contained content, then PROD based on the unsourced/unencyclopedic rationale? am I babbling, or is this coming across? Vulture19 ( talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Some user created navigational templates of the Japanese local television stations, something like TV-hokkaido, TV-kanto, TV-kinki and TV-kyushuoki. However, they are, speaking in evil, looks ugly. And for TV-kanto, it is duplicated with Kanto TV. -- JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 05:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles on hundreds of reality TV "contestants" of very little notablity, who only appeared on one season and have not been seen in any form of media since, yet won't allow articles on popular songs by major artists like ABBA, just because they weren't singles? Retro Agnostic ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of putting a <span class="plainlinks">
tag around an external link, to disguise it to look like an internal link? Why does this ever need to be done?
Mike R (
talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]
does not show the external link icon. What is not a valid use is when a true external link is hidden in such a manner. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk - 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I was playing around with the new WikiRanks site and came across something weird. Can someone come up with an explanation for this? I can see how the periodic peaks and troughs are the result of students checking basic info, but am having problems coming up with an explanation of why wind and fire are so much less popular than earth and water. - Banyan Tree 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a polciy or a guideline for the use of loong quotes or excerpts of books in articles? Thanks, CENSEI ( talk) 01:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Nikolai Gogol will have his 200th birthday on 1 April 2009. Are there any preparations at Wikipedia to celebrate that, e.g. by putting him on the front page that day? 78.53.42.204 ( talk) 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or policy about when to use articles with acronyms? 'The DMV' or 'the FBI' sound right, but I rarely hear 'the NASA' or 'the NPR.' Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am a sysops from Hindi wiki. Till now we have been changing the featured picture monthly. Now we want to change it on weekly basis. Every sunday. Can anyone tell me about any automated template that keeps the picture for a week. Say e.g. for the daily basis change, we have the Aaj kaa aalekh (Todays feature paragraph) section, that has the template,
this searches for a new dated template, daily. & the old template, goes to archieve. Now for the monthly basis, we just have to remove {{CURRENTDAY}} portion. But what to do for the weekly, sunday to sunday change. Please suggest at the earliest. Its urgent.-- आशीष भटनागर ( talk) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Solved the problem, on my own. Hi wiki running on it.-- आशीष भटनागर ( talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Done
Hi. I am fairly new to this great Wikipedia, and I admit I'm prejudiced towards British English rather than American English .
And you may think that what I'm suggesting is a small point, which in some ways it is ... but the text I'd propose be changed is seen by every editor, every time they create an article.
If you go to an article that doesn't exist, for example
jasdhfljhasdfk, and click "create this article", a message automatically appears at the top. It says:
Now, to me, in that last sentence, the text "... will likely be deleted ..." is over-American, and I'd suggest it should be changed to "... will probably be deleted ...". This would read better for a British-English reader, whilst - I think I'm right in saying - still works fine for our US friends? Again, yes it's a small point but, as I said, it's seen by every editor, every time they create an article. Were the text in a template, I could be bold and change it. However, I don't think it's in a template, but somehow a function of the wiki software. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. Thanks. Trafford09 ( talk) 10:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Trafford09 ( talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC): Firstly, a big thank-you to all those who've offered a good spectrum of viewpoints, from both sides of the pond. The contributions seem to be dwindling now (but do please add your thoughts, no matter how late you are to the discussion). So, it's time to reflect. I seems to me that there is now a consensus that
This being so, if the perceived consensus remains as above after a day or so, then I'll undertake to follow this up on our behalf. I'm not too sure on WP protocol, but I imagine I'll need to raise it from an informal discussion to a formal WP-Proposal. Then I'll hope somebody knows how to make any necessary software change, to effect the proposed new wording. Thanks again to all contributors (and any further ones). Trafford09 ( talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
All now sorted - thx to all & finally User_talk:Cool3. Trafford09 ( talk) 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello all! I hope this is in the right place! As per usual, through a long line of clicks and semi-thoughts ... and more clicks, I stumbled across the article for Npower (UK) and was highly surprised that the article doesn't criticise the company at all! They are at the bottom of a host of power company league tables, have had numerous run-ins with environmental types and are generally hated by a whole host of people! The talk page mentions one of these events (back in 2007) but nothing in the article history seems to have been added about it. Also, anything derisory that is added seems to be removed. I was wondering what the correct etiquette is to proceed? I know I should "Be Bold" and I can easily find sources for all of these criticisms but I didn't want to needlessly piss people off! I've written a bit on the talk page, but it doesn't seem like the article gets many edits, so I doubt it will be seen for a while! Anyway, any help is appreciated, sorry to ramble on! -- LookingYourBest ( talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The Vote on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone considered the copyright issues related to a common situation when someone want to have a copy of deleted article? (E.g. to "userfy" it)? Formally the deleted text has authorship. Delete or not it was released under a certain license and the text cannot be used in violation of this license. In other words, when a copy provided, it must go with the whole list of authors. If someone wants to use it for whatever purposes, they must be warned about the authorship/licensing.
It may be not a big deal, but recently I took part of deletion of a rather interesting and valuable original reseacrh, Motif of harmful sensation, and someone was interested in having a copy of this text. I am not sure whether the original contributors will be happy of their hard work (even if misplaced) will pop up elsewhere without their recognition. - 7-bubёn >t 17:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of people posting affiliate links for Amazon recently. Now it may be that they're not benefiting, having had a cookie planted on their machine, or they may be benefiting. In any case a quick search reveals 4,611 such links. Is there a robot that deals with such links ? -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
'Cause I really struggle to keep them separate in mind. -- AaThinker ( talk) 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this wikipedia, a source of funding for Norwegian wikipedia?
The reason I am asking, is that Norwegian wikipedia is at present promoting a competition (on the main page) that is a cooperation with the Norwegian Embassy in Tallin, and the Estonian embassy in Oslo.
(Quote: "Konkurransen er i samarbeid med Den norske ambassaden i Tallinn og Den estiske ambassaden i Oslo".)
Perhaps English wikipedia could arrange similar contests. If it is such a good idea.
Cheers, Litmus Today2 ( talk) 05:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is probably US Government public domain. Who has the software to download it and kill the watermark? Encyclopedic value for how the good ol' US of A is winning the war. Durova Charge! 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Founder of Wikipedia once said that he wished there was a biography for every person in the world on wikipedia. Does that mean i can create a page/biography on myself?
Missouri university has changed its web address from umr.edu to mst.edu There are 77 wikipedia articles which link to the old address. Could someone write a bot to change these, as links to the old address just produce the error message: "Address Not Found". Charvest ( talk) 10:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking a break for a few weeks to attend to family and academic obligations. I would really appreciate if the rest of you would buckle down and finish the Wikipedia by the time I get back. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a huge backlog at WP:Editor review that needs to be taken care of. Any ideas on how to get more reviewers? - down load | sign! 05:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt ( talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way to find a list of people who are watching a particular article? This will help me find out if an important article is not watched adequately.. -- Anshuk ( talk) 23:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a call for community input about a little corner of template talk page:
Display of date in Merge and Split tags: a discussion about enabling the display of the "date" parameter in all the merge/split templates, such as "Proposed since April 2009". Three propositions:
The change was briefly enabled on 10 templates then reverted and a discussion started: interested partie can continue at Template talk:Merge in sections "Date field broken" (talk side for #1–3) and "Please enable date display" (technical side for #2). — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How do i leave a link to an external website without leaving the entire hyperlink?
julcal—Preceding unsigned comment added by julcal ( talk • contribs)
Is there an organized effort to contact people listed in Wikipedia to ask them to contribute a photograph? It seems to me that people who depend on publicity (e.g. actors, authors, etc) would want to have a good photo representing them on Wikipedia, rather than a picture taken from a distance at a convention or lecture. Of course, the photo would have to be licensed appropriately, which may cause difficulties (e.g. perhaps it couldn't be a studio photo, but a picture they've had taken themselves). I'm sure other people have done this already: is the response typically positive or negative? (My apologies if I've missed something obvious.) -- ScottAlanHill ( talk) 03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Massive vandalism to the Leeds Bradford Airport article. cannot find history tab, no idea how to fix it. Thanks. (does this belong here, if not where?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.145.28 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, April 6, 2009
I've seen lots of mentions of wikipedia and potential COI editing in the news, TV et al, but this is the first time I've seen it mentioned in parliament [5]. Has anyone heard of anything similar before? Nil Einne ( talk) 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that many computing related articles seem to contain source code that is completely unreferenced and obviously written by Wikipedia editors. I feel that including code written by editors is completely against all Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:NOR. One might argue, that source code is an illustration of the article subject, much like self-taken photographs or self-made SVGs that are widely used in WP. But I think that still does not excuse us from ignoring very basic Wikipedia guidelines.
For examples of what I mean, take a look at [6]. Most of the articles do not mention where the source code is from. A specific example: Bellman-Ford algorithm. Please also note, that copying source code from a non-free source, such as a textbook, is a clear copyright violation. This is why I'd like to propose not including any source code in Wikipedia articles at all, unless it can be directly copied from a free reliable source. Offliner ( talk) 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(replies moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science#Source_code_written_by_editors, please reply there)
In the beginning of January there was a Signpost article on the Stanton project to create a simplified UI for beginning editors [7].
The Stanton Faq page is very unhelpfully on a Wikimedia wiki, so it's not possible to post additional questions on the discussion page. I have seen no further info since the signpost article, and would like to hear an update on what the current thinking is. This information is pertinent to development of templates on wikipedia.
{{
citation}}
)?In what time frame will #1 come out? #2? - J JMesserly ( talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea to help cut down on vandalism. Basically I'd like to design an algorithm that detects likely vandalism, and requires a trusted user (say, an admin) to approve the changes.
For example, if a proposed edit contains no recognizable dictionary words and wordcount is reduced more than 50%, kick it to an admin. Things along those lines. Basically, it'd entail reading a lot of vandal edits, identifying common elements, and implementing code to detect them.
There are three questions I have about this endeavor.
1.) Would such a filter be well received by the community? I'd be erring on the side of letting malicious edits through rather than restricting legitimate speech. 2.) Is there a central location vandalized pages are listed? Or would I need to download the wikidump and crawl it myself? 3.) Is wikipedia open to such contributions, or do they prefer we only improve articles?
Thanks for the information. I can be reached via my talk page, or at gregnorc@gmail.com
-GregNorc ( talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
English: Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is now accepting applications for scholarships to the conference. This year's conference will be handled from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The scholarship can be used to help offset the costs of travel and registration. For more information, check the official information page. Please remember that the Call for Participation is still open, please submit your papers! Without submissions, Wikimania would not be nearly as fun! -- Az1568 ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Could I ask Wikipedia editors to have a look at this proposal & let me know what they think, would they support it, what would they want in it or would they be totally against the idea etc.? Please let me know on my talk page or on here. Thanks. dottydotdot ( talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A proposal for a site that would allow people to submit articles they wished to be in Wikipedia but couldn't put in because they had a conflict of interest. Much of the time, these people want to put a neutral article about their notable company up, but can't. Wikipedia editors could then browse through these already made articles & add them to Wikipedia if they thought they were good. There would be no requirement to list the original author or site & editors could make as many or as few changes as they wished. It would be a paid for site, in that if you wanted to submit an article, it would cost you a small fee, less than £5. Editors who put an article on Wikipedia would also get paid for putting that article on.
"Advantages of a paid system"
Firstly, a percentage or revenue would be donated to a chosen charity, voted for by the readers & a percentage would also be donated to Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Having a paid system would stop spam & give people an incentive to write thorough, well researched articles rather than just putting rubbish up. It would also encourage editors to browse through & select articles.
There would be no problem with the payments, because it is not paying editors to submit specific articles. Any article that is submitted will be paid.
This would be a good way of increasing & improving Wikipedia's database, while negating a key criticism of Wikipedia.
dottydotdot ( talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has brought up a concern that this image is illegal and should be deleted. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made a chart comparing the rough number of Internet users who speak a particular language as their primary language to the size of the Wikipedia in that language, see:
It's fairly incomplete, but still interesting. Dcoetzee 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hallo, is the admin coaching project still active/in use? I was going to sign myself up for coaching, but then noticed that the unfulfilled requests were sitting around for many months without action. Thanks, tempodivalse [☎] 14:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Since many months, only three "coaches" continued "coaching". Considering the reputation of admin coaching, I'd advise you to not request coaching anyway. The page was marked as inactive, but it was removed. See latest archive (it was broken, repaired). Cenarium ( talk) 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a Category:Industry by country but this only has 6 countries, and it is undecided whether to say “Industry in Fooland” or “Industries in Fooland” or “Industry of Fooland”. (this is not "about" policy, just asking what the policy is! Category is underpopulated, but should be standardised first! Perhaps “Industry in Romania” should replace both existing categories?
Category:Economy of the United Kingdom has subcategories for Banking, Energy, Mining and Tourism; but not for Manufacturing and/or Industries. While there are Company categories for a number of Industries, this does not seem to cover either individual factories or Government factories eg see Category:Royal Ordnance Factories or Category:Government munitions production in the United Kingdom. So perhaps "Industry in the United Kingdom"? Hugo999 ( talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
...for you to try out. They're for finding incorrect uses of needs-infobox and needs-photo parameters and can be accessed from here. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I still keep coming across issues where people falsely say "blogs can't be sources"--an out and out incorrect statement--I've whipped up Wikipedia:Blogs as sources/ WP:BLOGS as a quick reference distilled from RS & BLP policy pages to give a quick clue on how blogs are allowed to be used from certain websites, and how on what articles. Any feedback on the talk is appreciated there. rootology ( C)( T) 03:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I used MP as the shortcut prefix
[1]
[2] for “main page” since it is used in the main page’s source code, for example id="mp-topbanner"
[8]. I used the prefix with the following shortcuts which I need for my user page :
MP:TOP,
MP:OTD,
MP:TFP,
MP:WSP. The prefix is not intended to be a namespace, but simply a shortcut prefix for Main Page with the letters following mp representing a section of the main page. These shortcuts are useful, allowing for example one to go directly to the part of the main page that includes the section “Other areas of Wikipedia“. As I’ve already pointed out, mp is in the Source of the main page and there represents the main page. I’m using the shortcuts and I hope others will find them helpful also. For example, suppose you want to go directly to “today‘s featured picture” from the multilingual portal. You simply use the short cut.
Chuck Marean 09:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
As some of you may know, I've started an unofficial blog about Wikimedia projects (but inevitably focussing more on Wikipedia).
I would really appreciate it if you took the time to pop over, perhaps leave a comment or two... If you like what you see then please subscribe!
I definitely plan to involve the community with the creation of the blog's content - articles focussing on particular WikiProjects, for example. If you're at all interested in working with me, then please do not hesitate to contact me.
Cheers,
-- Heebiejeebieclub ( talk) 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see the history of the Dr Sushil Kumar article. Directorichr ( talk · contribs) continues to edit the article to a non-standard formatting of references. I keep reverting it back to a formatted version, and try explaining to the editor what's wrong with their edits, but they never respond and just keep reverting back. What's my best action? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Article has been nominated for deletion: see the discussion here. - Pointillist ( talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
New project-space page: Wikipedia:You might be Wikilawyering if...
Please edit, and enjoy. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.
So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.
So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?
On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:
Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.
VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!
Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...
Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair. Anti venin 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Due to a cross-posting this is also being discussed at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat ( talk) 14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I do not understand what you are doing. Look at this.
I feel certain that the WTC controlled demolition hypothesis is false, I mean, how could it be demolished? It would take days to prepare. That said, I do not understand why such a large group of editors is concerned with renaming the article, and deleting scientific information which is relevant to the article.
One fact we know about science is, that most scientific facts turn out to be wrong in the end. That's how science works: we do the best we can, find we were wrong, there is more to know, and move on. These partisan battles are unprofessional.
Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
In order to have an organized page centralizing all the tasks relating to biographies of living people, a WikiProject has been created. There are several areas in need of greater attention, each listed on the project page. This is a project-wide problem that needs everyone's attention. Please take a look and help where you can. لenna vecia 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is possible or plausible, but would there be a way to allow certain IPs to edit semi-protected pages? I know with dynamic IPs it's difficult, but if there is a way it would be smart. For example, see Special:Contributions/74.137.108.115 as someone who deserves it. -- 99.240.227.108 ( talk) 03:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
template on the talk page of the desired page. -
Porchcrop (
talk|
contributions) 03:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)If you are interested please check out the discussion on the talk page at Flag desecration. I might be wrong in my reasoning here but I think it is an interesting discussion. Steve Dufour ( talk) 05:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but can anybody delete these images at last?
I'm really tired by setting warning templates and watching how they are being removed. Panther ( talk) 08:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I've cut out some articles from my watchlist. These were all put on either due to some sort of dispute or persistent vandalism. I'm not sure if there are any outstanding issues currently, but at the very least, I was wondering if any volunteers out there wanted to add these to their watchlist for at least the purpose of vandal fighting. Here they are A113 Alphabet murders Anti-Zionism East-West Schism Felipe Calderón Han Dynasty History of Japan Ion Antonescu List of The Future Is Wild species Memphis, Egypt Óscar Romero Shang Dynasty. Thanks.- Andrew c [talk] 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Whenever we have a decision to ban/indef-block a user, if the nom has a few diffs, most of the community just sticks with the nom. In fact, almost all of the banning discussions have resulted in the user-in-question banned/blocked. I feel that every Wikipedian of the community isn't speaking his/her own opinion. I think that some users, seeing the first few votes as "ban", don't express their own thoughts. And then a snowball effect happens. We need to change this. ( Yes we can!) Comments, please. M C 10 | Sign here! 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what percentage of articles get deleted within 10 days of being created? Within a month? Also, what percentage of all deletions does each deletion process (Prod, AfD, CSD) account for? I think it would be quite interesting to know. Any ideas? Cool3 ( talk) 13:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Until the 3rd of April this year Old Man River was a disambig page, linking to the Mississippi River, the song Ol' Man River and a couple of other artiles. On this date that page was overwritten by an article about an Australian musician. As I don't believe the artist is deserving of the primary topic title, I moved that article to Old Man River (musician) and replaced the resultant redirect with the old disambig page (with an entry for the musician) by using a copy and paste from the history of the page now about the musician.
Was this the correct way to restore the page? If not what should I have done? Also, I couldn't decide really where this message should have gone - for future reference have I got it right? Thryduulf ( talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I am launching a new forum for Wikipedia users. Please feel free to ask any questions, either on my talk page or to admin@thewikipediaforum.com.
The Wikipedia Forum aims to provide a place where all Wikipedia users can talk, suggest, comment & argue. Wikipedia itself provides no easy & accessible way of doing this-Wikipedia talk pages are confined to topics that directly relate to the article & conversation between multiple users is unwieldy & confusing. Mailing lists are also confusing & do not scale very well to large conversations between many people, resulting in full inboxes containing a large number of emails quoting the previous one & taking up 4 pages. Users are free to talk about anything with very little censorship, yet the aim is not to become a forum for Wikipedia haters. Instead it caters for everyone, from the average user confused about how to add templates, to administrators wishing to discuss complex articles in private. Totally free & requiring no public information that can be linked with your Wikipedia account(unless you wish it to be), there will be a minimal amount of moderation, but only to ensure there are no personal attacks & insults-criticism & complaints are perfectly welcome-they make Wikipedia better for all of us.
The forum is at www.thewikipediaforum.com. Please visit & join in.
Thanks! dottydotdot ( talk) 15:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that there should be a new project create called the Wikipedia Against Vandalism. Any users (reformed vandals and users with a clean history can join) that want to sign up and help can. Awareness should be raised about vandalism on Wikipedia. People don't seem to get that whatever they write only stays on Wikipedia for about a minute. That one minute of fun that they get just hurts the reliability and public opinion of Wikipedia. There should be a forum for everyone to talk about the subject and publicly state their reformation. The project will do other things, and administrators that have the main goal of blocking vandals can also join. Each administrator that blocks a vandal or users that refer a possible vandal to an admin, can log it into a list. We will update the number of blocked vandals everyday and it might possibly get put on the main page of Wikipedia. I am willing to create this project, but I need someone with a vast knowledge of Wikipedia (preferably an administrator) to guide me since I am very new to Wikipedia. Please spread the word about this proposed project. Thanks. -- Thenachoman ( talk) 13:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO too many biology-related articles have been given a severe anthropocentric bias, possibly by medics with limited awareness of general biology. Examples include:
I propose that top-level titles, without a scope in parentheses (e.g. Embryological development vs Embryological development (human)) be restricted to the most generalised coverage, with X (human) covering human-specific aspects. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Some items seem to be regularly being removed from my watchlist. Can anyone do this or does anyone have any suggestions as to how this may be happening. Is there a watchlist history anywhere? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this user's userpage OK? User:Zoomzoom1 -- seems like its an ad. I had a revert session against this person, so I am steering clear of this myself... User A1 ( talk) 06:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The page already exist: SimApp, and his userpage is also categorised here for example! In the same condition and categorization there are also the following userpages: User:Hedgehog0 and User:Peedeebee/LUSAS. Even assuming good faith it looks as some software developers have found a way to increase a bit their web's visibility. -- Bramfab ( talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Where can I find a list of the most edited articles on Wikipedia? Some cool guy ( talk) 04:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm searching for a Don DeLillo photo for my hu.wiki article that's not subject to copyright. All the pictures I looked at have the warning: may be subject to copyright. Can anyone find me one that's free? Thanks, 97.112.129.22 ( talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I am recently posting many of your definitions, to prove a point when I blog, as your articles are usually full of good information and news, as well as the fact that you don't usually have slighted information without there actually being a disclaimer about accuracy. I always cite your information and the page itself which draws people to look from my blog to your site. Recently I was looking up the definition of the words "liberal" and "conservative". Both used to be (up until recently) rather simple and easily attainable. Someone who is slighted towards the right obviously, has change the definition of conservative, for example, to redirect me to the word Conservativism. Then it explains who wrote what, what year, how that differs from one culture to another. First, I didn't want the definition of Conservatism, I wanted the old version which said Conservative. And, the complication of both articles makes it as if I was looking up automobile and had to sift through all the articles including when Henry Ford welded a crank for the first combustion engine vehicle. I don't need all that. Please try to keep things simpler, and on the definition of Conservative, it starts off saying that it is hard to define. I didn't need to hear that, just tell me what you know. liberal means to use more, conservative means to use less, you know, definition, not an encyclopedia of related and unrelated topics. One would think Karl Rove, the master of misinformation, somehow took over wikipedia. I find instead that they were revised by the same contributor who took it upon himself to get involved with misinformation about Joe Biden during the election. That is like allowing Adolph Hitler to define the will of the German people prior to World War II. If this trend continues I will have to find another site for information. Thank You Steve Walker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmildman ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is just a quick heads-up that Wikipedia Art has resurfaced on Wikipedia as Wikipedia Art Controversy 2009. It is nowhere near as bad as last time. It is a reasonably neutral article about the domain name dispute with Wikimedia, which does actually have a little RS coverage, but it probably needs an eye kept on it in case it turns into a coat rack for bringing back all the old stuff that got deleted before. The Wikipedia Art Wiki still says that they hope to get Wikipedia Art back onto Wikipedia. I have no idea whether this is them trying to achieve that, or something else entirely. My view is that it still fails notability however I am not going to tag it for deletion as I might be seen as having a COI in the matter following my not exactly glorious involvement original AfD. I have done a little cleanup on the article but avoided hacking it about too much for the same reason. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
MedCab currently (23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) has fourteen unadopted requests. Volunteers would be greatly appreciated. There are no particulary requirement, but people looking to help should check out their suggestions for volunteers. Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If the near side of the moon is full of Maria and always facig earth, whereas the farside doesn't have any Maria, doesn't that suggest that all the impact craters on the moon were formed by bits of the earth bombarding it at a very early stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.28.130 ( talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ahoy! There's been a rather heated debate on Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) regarding whether Bill O's association with "conservative" should be included in the article introduction, and (if so) how that information should be presented. Unfortunately, we've only gotten one response from editors not previously involved in the dispute, and so I'm posting here in the hopes that more of the community will take a few minutes to read the RFC and respond. Full RFC may be found here. Thanks in advance! // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just finished a tool for finding pages on Wikipedia needing images near a given location – tools:~alexz/coord. You can search near a coordinate, or search near another article (if the article is also geotagged). The results can be exported into a KML file and viewed in Google maps. Please leave bug reports/feature requests on my talk page for now. (P.S., if you know how to replicate the Google maps functionality with another online service, preferably something free like OpenStreetMap, please let me know.) Mr. Z-man 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeking some editorial help on an article this user is trying create. The sticking point is that the user is changing a redirect to another article. I left the user several automated messages using HG before I determined that they were most likely editing in misguided, but good faith. I left the user a personal message to try to explain the situation and they have simply recreated the article once more. I'm fairly certain they have not seen the message. I do not want to keep reverting the user until they are blocked as I do not see this as a useful solution. Any ideas? Thanks. Tide rolls 21:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The attention of all editors is drawn to a Request for Comment on a major issue for the English Wikipedia: a package of six proposals to move the ArbCom hearings process away from the loose, expansionary model that has characterised it until now, to a tighter organisational model. The RFC started Tuesday 29 April. Tony (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
In answering a {{helpme}}, it looks to me like this 'user' is a student project (from a comment on the talk page).
I would have thought the correct procedure here would be to raise it in Wikipedia talk:School and university projects; however, I raised another issue there over a month ago, and I note it's had no response; therefore, per guidelines on that project page, I'm mentioning it here in the hope that someone who knows about coordination with student project work might be able to take a look, engage in a dialogue with the users and see how we can work with them.
Cheers, Chzz ► 04:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is a general principle that a global consensus of the Wikipedia community overrides a local consensus of the editors of an article. (This seems to be the philosophy behind the third item of WP:CONEXCEPT and seemed to be the consensus in the events that led to WP:ARBMAC2. [9] [10])
There seems to be a local consensus at Talk:Autofellatio that in addition to a drawing of the sexual practice in question, the article must display a photo, which must not be moved away from the very top of the article. Is this at odds with what a global consensus would be? I believe that discussions at that talk page (including two RfCs, currently Talk:Autofellatio#RfC: Should the human image be moved down) may be skewed by self-selection bias:
Or perhaps I am simply much more old-fashioned than the typical Wikipedia editor? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 00:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
One of my Wiki-hobbies is finding overlinked articles ( WP:OVERLINK) and de-overlinking them. This task would be simplified by a tool that produces a simple list of all links in the article, e.g. running this tool on "Here is a sentence about first link, which has been the capitol of second link since third link declared it to be" would produce something like
This would greatly simplify and speed up spotting "low value" links.
Does such a tool exist? If not, where can I recommend that it be developed? --
201.37.230.43 (
talk) 01:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across an article that was a copyvio from zineziki.com. While on the site, I noticed that their logo contains the text "the independent media wikipedia". Additionally, their ZineWiki:About page states that their site runs "Wikimedia" software (should be MediaWiki).
ZineWiki is powered by the Wikimedia software meaning anyone, anywhere can contribute directly to the site at any time. ZineWiki aspires to the same standards of quality, accuracy and neutrality as Wikipedia. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia, please have a look at its guidelines before contributing. After that, take us to school!
They don't seem to make it very clear that they're unaffiliated with Wikipedia and the WMF. Radiant chains ( talk) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a ' mandatory' notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. Best wishes, -- Tinu Cherian - 10:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Seth Hilton is a redlink. There is nothing at Google to indicate that he's in any way a notable singer. And yet we have a discography for him at User:DrVince/Wish Down The Drain and User:Wish Down The Drain Song. The claims of being number one in Australia and number 2 in the US seem to be hoaxes. I'm aware that this is User space, but is this an appropriate use of User space? These users may be socks of User:Seth hilton, although User:DrVince has been deleted from that list. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometime back I think I saw a chart showing what percentage of anonymous IP edits came from each country. Can someone point me back to that chart? Thanks -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to draw people's attention to pages like this and this, and encourage every regular editor to create one. It's a difficult topic, but an important one I feel. Majorly talk 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this. Recently (I think yesterday) Watchlist quit watching talk pages. This has destroyed the basics of communication on wikipedia. If you have a comment on an article talk page you now have to specifically go to the page to see if there are responses. If there are conversations on your talk or somebody else's talk page where you have made a comment you have to manually go to that page to see if there are responses. There are no longer any flags to let you know there have been changes. I can't believe this would have passed any consensus test. I don't know where to register my protest. Americasroof ( talk) 13:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that people write "!vote" in AfD, RfA, and other discussions a lot instead of using the word "vote". The reason for that may be in a FAQ or guideline somewhere, but I've never seen it. It has led me to ponder the subject, and I've come up with two possible reasons that make the most sense to me. First, since decisions are made by consensus rather than through a democratic voting process, "my !vote" could be interpreted as "my non-vote" (assuming "!" means "not" as it does in several computer languages), or "my advisory vote" or my "non-binding strawpoll vote". The other reason might be a technical one. I installed a JavaScript kludge that added pretty icons in front of words like Keep and Oppose (as well as a lot of other places where it was annoying, thus I disabled it). Perhaps "vote" has a special meaning in some situations, and "!vote" doesn't. It's been bugging me, so I thought I'd just ask and stop living in the dark about it. It's probably been asked dozens of times before (though I couldn't find it after slogging through a few pages of search results), so feel free to just slap me with a trout and point me to an archived discussion is you prefer. :-) Thanks! — Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I think I will update the WP:!VOTE section to include a very brief summary of what you just explained so that others will have an easier time figuring that out. :-) (And thanks also for not trout slapping me.) — Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The page notability is structured as a disambiguation page, but has nothing to disambiguate as there is only one article of this title, Notability in Wikipedia. Should that article be moved there, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should the page be a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry, or is there some other useful function for it? Skomorokh 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I think we can all agree that feeding trolls is a bad idea. However, I haven't seen much agreement on just what that means. My question, for the community, is this: What kind of food does a troll want, and how do we avoid giving them that?
The question might be easy to answer if there were a clear test to distinguish trolls from non-trolls. Thus, that's also a question: How can we tell when someone's trolling, rather than trying to genuinely ask a question or make a good-faith edit? What's worse: false positives or false negatives?
I've seen little guidance in policy or agreement from the community on these questions. Therefore, I'm asking, and this seems to be a good place to start. Opinions? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea: Couldn't we do advertisement on Wikipedia like google adsense. The money - may be several million dollars per month - we could use, to buy OLPCs, to spend to schools in third world ? Or support any education-topics in third world. For these OLPCs we could create DVDs which contain Wikipedia. At the moment only people with internet-connection can read wikipedia and can use all these free information in the web. But there are still a lot of people on earth, which don't have any internet and any computer, which can't take part on that. Wouldn't it be a logic consequence, that we try to let join all people on earth on these wonderful new free information ? 95.114.122.39 ( talk) 23:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Pond weed - redirects to Elodea when typed in thje search box. "Elodea is native to North America". Other countries have native pond weed too.
Leading indicator - redirects to Index of Leading Indicators "The Index of Leading Indicators is an American economic index". Other countries have leading indicators too. There is an article called Leading indicators but shouldnt the correct name for the article be in the singular? In the same way that it's Interest rate rather than Interest rates? 78.145.24.191 ( talk) 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Proposed mergers has a backlog - many mergers have very few comments, could folks make some more and maybe alert appropriate wikiprojects? And some admins close some? Will be back later. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
On May 7, there was a brief outage, during which I tried to access Wikipedia. The page returned was the usual "Wikipedia has a problem" page. Usually, I disregard it, but this time I decided to view the page source.
The page contains a generic notice of a problem with the servers, and a Google search box. This is not a problem. However, the Google logo is served from Google's servers, which is a problem. (Specifically, the file " http://www.google.com/logos/Logo_40wht.gif".) This allows Google to record an entry into its logs every time I access Wikipedia during a server outage. The Wikimedia privacy policy regarding IP addresses states "When a visitor requests or reads a page [...] The Wikimedia Foundation may keep raw logs of such transactions, but these will not be published..." There is no mention that external parties will also record this information, or how they will treat that information.
I wanted to get the community's opinion about this. I think the easiest thing to do is either replace the logo with plaintext, or host the logo on a Wikimedia server. (I have no problem with the search box, so long as it is explicitly clear that the transaction will be processed by Google, because at that point I can make the decision.) Ideas? Mind matrix 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have just published an up-to-date look at the state of article-name disambiguation via the use of brackets; it include the most commonly used terms, national biases and the trends since the last report on the topic, January 2007.
You can view the report's introduction or jump straight to my findings. I would be especially happy to see others editing the pages, drawing their own conclusions or offering historical perspective - this is a wiki, after all. It's very much a work in progress, and if anyone has any questions, I am watching all the relevant pages. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Im wanting to add history Of the New Zealand Miniature Fox terrier How is this done? Is there anywhere where I can get help to write it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzminfoxys ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I know I've brought this up before, but I didn't get any response last time. ANY. So, I'm going to post this question again:
Are there any WikiProjects that care about talk pages of redirects? Or where there's no significant history to the talk page?
For purposes of this discussion, "significant" excludes vandalism/non-constructive edits, pages with nothing more than templates and whitespace, and edits of the theme "this is the same as X, it should be merged/redirected to there".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaey ( talk • contribs)
(e/c) There are several WikiProjects which, for various reasons, actively tag redirects within their scope. I cannot speak for other projects, but at WikiProject Articles for creation we like to keep track of the redirects that we create on behalf of unregistered users. According to Category:Redirect-Class articles there are likely to be 124 projects which use Redirect-Class (although some of these may have followed other projects rather than actively choosing to ...). Therefore I don't think it is helpful to exclude templates in your definition of "significant", because these banners may be considered important by the projects. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks, I'm moving the discussion to a centralized location -- User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Please provide further input there. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all you do, you've helped me a lot! I really appreciate everyone that helps out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.92.170 ( talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This has been brought up a couple of other times, but has not been addressed: A random article function that works within user-defined criteria would be most welcome. For example, a user could see a random featured article, or a random psychology-related stub, or a random music-related good article. This would allow those who want to improve Wikipedia to search for stubs and start-class articles that are in their field of expertise, and allow researchers to find good information on a particular subject. Of course the basic, truly random function should remain available. — Jch thys 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently proposed a bot and it looks like it will likely be approved. However, it was mentioned that I post here to ensure that the wider community agrees with the proposed use and function of the bot. All comments, for and against, the use of the bot would be much appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrilBot (not here!). A trial has been completed so you can look over the bot's contributions. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You have provided me with so much important information, and i appreciate it a lot! thank you every volunteer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.92.170 ( talk) 20:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to ask this... I just created two articles to redirect to the Marmorkrebs article, Marbled crayfish and Marble Crayfish (the common names for the pest). Noting that I screwed up the naming of the latter, I "moved" it to Marble crayfish. Problem is, this creates a double-redirect, which apparently stops the redirect working. How do I clean this up? -- PaulxSA ( talk) 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I edited all templates in Category:User js. That job was long overdone.
In this category there are two sets of templates ("js" and "JS"). The "js"-templates call the user a "coder" or "programmer" of JavaScript. The "JS" templates call the user a "user" of Javascript.
I feel 2 sets of templates is too much. I'd keep the "JS" set. (It would have to be renamed "js" because that is the default for language userboxes.) I think keeping the "js" set is the most practical and correct solution.
I'd like to know if there are more people who feel this way. Debresser ( talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I nominated them for deletion here. Debresser ( talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone complete the archive of the talk page? I've been accused of vandalism for archiving a talk page. File talk:H1N1 map.svg, and File talk:H1N1 map.svg/Archive 1. I left the appropriate message in the edit comments ("archive"). 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
See this story by journalist Thomas Crampton. Have our references to the newspaper been compromised? [11] [12] [13] Is there anything we can do about it? Skomorokh 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've included one of the above as an example at Template:Cleanup-link rot/why, along with an explanation of how, as a proper full citation instead of a bare URL, it is still possible today to retrieve the article. Feel free to fix the article that you obtained the bare URL from. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A bot could easily archive all cited web pages using WebCite. (Of course there is no guarantee that they don't go offline, but it would be a good start. The coolest thing would be an own archival service for Wikipedia, but I suppose that would be too much legal trouble.) -- Tgr ( talk) 06:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Today, I ran into the first conflict I've really ever had on Wikipedia. I Stumbled onto a flame war while vandal hunting. I believe I handled it as best I could and would like some opinions on how I did. After placing the warnings and using WP:TROUT, one was deleted and was given a response and insults on My talk page. I then reported the matter too Wp: Wikiquette alerts. Overall, I felt I handled the matter maturely and thoughtfully. Thoughts? -- Skater ( talk) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons now has (over) 4,444,444 files, so here's a big toast to you all! Of course, some of these files will be deleted due to copyright violations and various other issues, but for every deleted file, there will be ten new files to take their place! :D -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 01:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done indeed to the admins who caught the fake quotation added to the article on French composer Maurice Jarre hours after his death March 28. It appears that en.WP is stalked by lazy journalists who will lift anything from the Internet without checking. See The San Fransisco Chronicle. Tony (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Per the required "spamming" of venues, I would like to bring attention to my nomination for the Bot Approval Group, which may be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Nakon. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to let you know about Wikimedia Conference Japan. This is a local version of the Wikimania conference in Japan. It is scheduled to be held sometime during 21-23 November this year in Tokyo, Japan (most likely to be one-day long). The details are being worked out at meta:Wikimedia Conference Japan and the mailing list, and the relevant translations are provided in meta:Wikimedia Conference Japan/en, meta:User:Makotoy/Wikimedia Conference Japan. Although a major potion of the participants is expected to be Japanese, we would like to have non-Japanese speaking presenters and/or audiences as much as possible. For example comparison between different language editions would be a great enlightenment to largely monolinguistic Japanese users. Please feel free to contact us in the talk pages or through wikimail. We are grateful if you could help us spread the word about this conference (translation into different languages, advertisement suggestions, etc.) regards, -- Makotoy ( talk) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to remind everyone about our WP:Requests for feedback page. I generally view it as a very lightweight, informal peer review process. I've had it watchlisted ever since I found it several months ago, and I try to respond to as many requests as I can. There's usually 3 or so posts per week, on average, and the users are generally newbies. Its a great way to start helping them and getting them on-track with MOS, policies, etc. Reviewers have been in a demand there ever since I've stumbled across it, but lately its becoming worse. Requests are being archived without any answers... So I decided to make a plea here for more helpers :-) There are currently a couple unanswered ones in the most recent archive, as well as all the requests (I think 4 or 5) on WP:FEED itself. It doesn't take the most experienced editor to answer feedback requests, I started after being around here for 6 months or so. There's also a help page for how to answer requests. I hope this is the right venue for this post, I didn't know where else to put it. Killiondude ( talk) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Redwood_National_and_State_Parks&action=history
Wikipedia is losing the fight against vandalism. The community relies too much on bots to detect and fix it. The downside of bots is, that there are so many of them and if the wrong one wins the race, the others only look on the last edit which is legitimate as it came from a trustworthy bot. Obviously not enough real people use their watch list to cover even the featured articles and check article histories. -- h-stt !? 07:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen,
I submit, for your approval, a new application for all you WikiAddicts out there -- WikiBiff.
You know it's happened to you -- someone left a message for you on your user talk page. Normally, the next browse to another page on Wikipedia would have alerted you to the new message, but you weren't on Wikipedia at the time -- you were off typing up some paper in Word or playing some flash game on the numerous websites that have flash games on them. You finally saw the message, five hours later, and you realized that the person who left you the message went to bed 15 minutes after they left you the message, sorely disappointed that you never answered them.
Now those days are over, because now WikiBiff is here! WikiBiff will sit silently in your system tray, and alert you with a friendly balloon whenever you have new messages waiting for you! Multiple accounts on the same Wiki site? NO PROBLEM! Multiple accounts across multiple Wiki sites? NO PROBLEM! Just plug your account info into WikiBiff and relax!
Now, on a more serious note, it's 8:25 AM here, and I've been up all night finishing this up, so I'm going to wait on doing things like getting Wiki pages set up for it until later. Also, I'll make the disclaimer -- THIS IS A BETA-QUALITY PROGRAM. However, all the same, I'd appreciate having people who are curious try it out, tell me if it works, and give me their feedback on it. While I await SourceForge to approve the project, I have the binary temporarily posted to
http://mikaey.dlinkddns.com:8080/WikiBiff.exe
https://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?group_id=262865&filename=WikiBiff-0.1.exe&a=25358567 , and the source at
http://mikaey.dlinkddns.com:8080/WikiBiff.zip
https://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?group_id=262865&filename=WikiBiff.zip&a=98717785 . System requirements (I think) are a Windows 2000/XP/Vista computer with the .NET Framework 3.5 installed.
And if you tell me someone else already did this, after I searched all over for it, and spent all this time writing it, I'm going to be really mad. :-P
Enjoy! Matt ( talk) 13:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Malaysia, scroll to the bottom and expand all the navigation boxes. Do we really need every article to link to every other? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you remove most of them. I suggest that "Languages", "International membership", "monarchies", "government" and at least one of the three "countries..." templates go. It might be sensible to suggest this at Talk:Malaysia first and see if there is any opposition.- gadfium 00:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that since we have many navboxes people think there should be navboxes for everything. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Should an article on an author consist mainly of quotes from book reviews of his books? This is the situation at Frederick Sontag. I think people come to an article to find the basic facts on a person, in this case, not to read other people's opinions. Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Link in the Box
directs to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result instead of http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result. The soft redirect is not an appropriate solution in my eyes. There should not be a technical article in the article namespace. Concerns other language versions too-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 08:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
wikipedia still cites it most probably more than any other source.
wtf. it's the british national channel. nothing more, nothing else.
e.g. try hard to find the ratio of articles ridiculing the french over those that don't.
similarly the CIA info, wtf. -- AaThinker ( talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
this is americanbritish-centrism to the bone folks.
What do you think about this:
I'm working on an article and the subject of the article falls under 5 stub types. As I don't really want 5 stubs to show up on the article (the sub list would be longer than the article info), is there a way to hide the stub comment but still have the stub be active (not using a hidden comment)? I haven't been able to find any info in a short search. Thanks. OlYeller Talktome 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I felt like this was a more appropiate place to put this comment (taken from the Wikipedia talk:Village pump), so.... anybody has an opinion about it? - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ... _ΞΞΞ_ . -- 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Just pick one stub template. The stub sorting is not very important anyway. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
One has to feel this has become a blistering hive of stupidity. In the past month I've been told:
And the list goes on. Combined with the closing issues - MER-C is hppy to overrule consensus at the drop of a hat, so it's impossible to know if your nomination will pass or not - I think this process is badly broken, and needs a major overhaul, or at least an injection of sane reviewers. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I just started False title (English usage), which is about phrases such as "United States Deputy Marshal Jim Hall said Tuesday that fatally wounded Lawrence County Sheriff Gene Matthews told him that fugitive tax protester Gordon W. Kahl was dead before other law enforcement officials started shooting." (Reed, Roy (1987), Titles That Aren't Titles, retrieved 2009-05-23. According to that site, a version of the article appeared in the New York Times, July 5, 1987, p. 31. The sentence is quoted from the Arkansas Gazette.)
Unfortunately, everything I found about these phrases criticizes them; maybe only the people who dislike them care enough to comment. (Full disclosure: I agree with every criticism.) So I couldn't even find an NPOV title for the article. This construction is massively popular here, so I'm hoping someone will know a source that approves of or justifies the construction or has a better name for it. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Commedia all'italiana. Can I understand this as Italian filmcomedy or a subgenere of that? -- Ezzex ( talk) 12:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.41.42.73. -- Wavelength ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Maintenance categories are often called Category:Articles with problem X from/since Month Year. As you can see on User:Debresser/Monthly maintenance categories (which I created for certain wikignome activities), an absolute majority of the maintenance categories uses "from". But not all. I propose that we make that all. Not because "from" is intrinsically better than "since" in my view, but for the sake of having a clearly defined housestyle. Debresser ( talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That is more or less the way I expected it would have to be. Note that this includes extensive work, because there are many categories with "since". I'd be willing to work on it seriously, but I am no admin, and because many of the templates involved are protected, I'd need to find an admin willing to actively and operatively work together with me on this. Debresser ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to see the monthly categories for Category:Categories for deletion included in this standardization. -- Pascal 666 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this change was made to the CfD categories in violation of the established process to change category names. Since when did the pump become the place to override guidelines and policies? Did anyone even think that if you are going to violate the established process to rename categories you might ask their first? After all many people do not follow discussions her because the volume make it near impossible to see new items or to follow a discussion. I think at the very least this needs to be brought there intermediately for a discussion. I will not be following or responding here but will expect a discussion to be started there. The admins involved should clearly be considering the appropriateness of their actions in out of process deletions. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The Anglo-Zanzibar War was the shortest war in history, 40 minutes, according to the Random article I just read. It seems to me that this is worthing of a DYK nomination, but the process of doing such a nomination seems too hard for me to do this late in the evening. Anybody else?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in posting a new article entitled Church of Civilization. It is essentially a description of a Church which I designed and created as a sort of philosophical exercise a few years ago and of which I am a legally ordained minister.
It is interesting and topical because the church has sound historical reasons for recognizing same sex marriage as a sacrament. This is completely tangential to the main purpose of the church, simply an accident of history.
I began to post an article but found that the free file hosting site where I have posted historical materials (the record of posts in the philosophical forum which led to its design), the church design document itself and other materials was on the blacklisted list.
Now, I realize that this might seem like shameless self-promotion. I suppose it would be except that the church design is completely free to anyone to use completely independent of me.
It is both a real legal church with at least one legally ordained minister and an interesting experiment in the relationship between church and state.
I lost all my original article because I could not save it. When I tried it was dumped because of the blacklisted links and all my original work was lost.
Now, is it worth my time to redo my work, incorporate the lengthy details of the church including creed, reading schedule, calendar, holy days, rituals, prayers, and sacrements, all of which are in the church design document, or is it the kind of thing which will automatically be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Huff ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As I have no clue where to report this (It doesn't really fit into the 3RR page). There is a struggle going on between people who think every song by a band deserves a separate article, and people who redirect these articles back to the artist/album pages. I really have no big opinion on this, it was just something I kept comming across using Huggle, see here for some of the reverts/edits. Sitethief ( talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there somewhere that I can get guidance about something that changes all of the time and how often this should be updated. In particular, an IP is updating the United States public debt biweekly and I wonder: is that a good idea? PDBailey ( talk) 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!
Maedin\ talk 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just had to share. In my textbook on Napoleon, the following passage appears, describing how he became First Consul of France: A new plebiscite was held and the people were asked to agree to the simple question, 'Should Napoleon Bonaparte be consul for life?' Men – and it must be remembered that the plebiscites only sought male opinion – were simply asked to sign their names in 'yes' or 'no' columns; there was no notion of a secret ballot. Men sometimes appended comments to their votes and, in 1802, these were largely positive. 'The man who has given us peace, religion and order in such a short space of time,' declared one Parisian, 'is the most capable of perpetuating these achievements'.
And it just suddenly struck me... that was an RfA! We're still using Napoleonic techniques to select our admins. This isn't a criticism, it's just one of those shock-modern-times-are-just-like-the-olden-days moments one gets when studying History. Pardon my little excited outburst! ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's an iPhone app for pedia editors to more easily browse talk pages & make edits etc. If not, anyone feel like making me one?!! dottydotdot ( talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To prevent spoilization, I suggest that we should remove the endings and/or certain climaxes that declare a movie done. The articles on Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes were deleted/redirected to prevent a similiar situation. People who read an article on a movie that they haven't seen yet might accidentally spoil the movie for themselves. We should just give them what they need to know about the movie before they see it, rather than give them the ending as well. I have done this on some of the movie articles that I created as well. Would this idea work? Ryanbstevens ( talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Worrying about spoiling people ain't our concern? Well this ain't the first time that an idea or move like this was made. Personally, i think that there's a lot of our policies that need to be changed. The responses made to this means that we should restore those episode articles. Also, i did it on articles that i created, rather than other articles. Additionally, what's the difference between the redirected Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes that were redirected to prevent spoilization, and the reaction that you made on this topic? I'm not saying that i disagree, but i'm just saying that it wasn't the first time that similiar actions were done (by other users over episode articles). What's the main purpose of this action? Your response is clearly like the guy in the Blockbuster online commercial, who manages to look at the couple's movies and he tells them how each of the movies ended. What's wrong about being like a cinema advertising outlet? Besides the fact that we're not one? Or can we find a way to hide the endings somehow, and those who have seen the movies can scroll down and read on? Or is that impossible? Ryanbstevens ( talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
See: [14] [15] [16]. The outside forums are: http://toolserver.org/~bjelleklang/pjirc/ and http://widget.mibbit.com/?settings=89dd50fb10ed1aa09dc3296cf5cf7177&server=irc.freenode.net&channel=%23wikipedia-en-help&autoConnect=true&nick=ZMIB_%3F%3F%3F%3F&noServerMotd&noServerNotices. I would object to this practice 1) it is just one more thing to confuse a newbie, and 2) it excludes the wider community from ensuring the newbie is properly assisted if advice is given on the forum. Thoughts? -- 64.85.210.19 ( talk) 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Interested in listening to some beautiful music? Want to close your eyes and travel history and time? Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates is for you! Whether you want to simply review the proposals of others, or to search Commons' extensive collection of music to find something by your favourite (public domain) composers, featured sounds can use your help.
Come and join us today!
Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a question and not sure where to post it, but this seemed the most likely. I see many places where Wikipedia says "This is a stub, you can make it better by expanding it...." or wording similar to that effect. But, then I see where photo galleries are being removed. The Gallery that used to be in Butterflywas a good divisional display of the main branches of this insect family. Why was it removed? I had 9 images in it, but all the images were helpful. It seems to me that Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot by asking that articles be expanded, then when they are, somebody comes back in and cuts them back down. I don't know about any of you, but my encyclopedias all have Galleries of images in them. My question is this: Why are the Galleries being removed? Isn't an encyclopedia a visual tool? Why remove the pictures? Why not just convert everything to sythesized speech and do away with all the visuals - text and images? I see policies apparently being interpreted in different places on Wikipedia in different manners. What am I missing? HaarFager ( talk) 16:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that allot of acronyms are being used on this Wikipedia. Its quiet confusing from time to time, especial if there is no link or proper context included. Is there a list of commonly used acronyms available? That would make things allot easier for people who are new, especially if they are used to other Wikipedias where acronyms are less used. I would also like to make a point to put some context or a linked acronym when you DO use them to make things easier for those that are not (yet) incrowd enough to know them all. Sitethief ( talk) 11:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Or WP:ABC for fun ;-) ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
[[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]
and similar. Once you start to sign your name on paper documents with ~~~~, you know it's a problem...As of now Mohamed Altoumaimi redirects to the Bernoulli numbers article, yet there is no mention of him anywhere in the article. I am asking if this is enough to merit his own article. I'm sure there is more on this kid, but I just happened to see him on the main page of yahoo, and came to see if wikipedia had more info. I don't want to start an article that isn't notable, and while I know the WP:NOTABILITY policies, I'm really not sure if this qualifies. If given the OK, I would be happy to write the article. Drew Smith What I've done 06:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just make a little try on the Portal:Lyon. I change all the design, to make it possible to see rounded corner in different sections. But only, people using Firefox can see them. So take a look and write me a message if you like this design. Binnette ( talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A comment above reminded me, that there was a questionarie last year about Wikipedia users that we could fill if we wanted. I think it was conducted by Amsterdam university or something. Does anyone know what the status of that study is? When will we have the results? Offliner ( talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am a researcher in the GroupLens lab at the University of Minnesota. As part of our work within Wikipedia, we are conducting a study in which we have developed an interface modification that is designed to help users work together more effectively. The interface modification makes a minor change to Wikipedia's interface for reverting other editors. If you wouldn't mind giving it a try, we'll be very interested in your feedback. See User:EpochFail/NICE. -- EpochFail ( talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created Category:Wikipedians by access to offline sources as a way of tracking which users have access to certain offline sources. I realize that if we were to list all of the source we have access to, it would get jumbled and useless. As such, if you're interested, perhaps list only the sources you find particularly useful. If enough users do this, it may become a very handy way to find editors with whom to collaborate or seek second opinions. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen quite a bit of fragmented discussion about this topic, so I wanted to get all comments out in the open. Are there are reasons why people would want headline levels to jump from 2 to 4, 2 to 5, or 3 to 5, etc, etc? - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 15:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a discussion with Jarry1250 about this in relation to the Albert Vanloo article edit [17] made by Jarry's LivingBot. I think it should be left to the editor to decide what level of heading is appropriate (both aesthetically and functionally) to the sections of an article. (===H3=== in particular can be difficult to use because of its relatively large appearing size.) AFAIK MOS:HEAD does not say heading levels should be consecutive. It merely notes that a series of headings are available. (Please tell me if I have missed anything here.) As always it's important that bots are not used to make controversial edits. -- Klein zach 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Jarry1250 has now started a new discussion about this in his userspace and made it into an Rfc, see User:Jarry1250/RFC. Was that a good idea? Wouldn't it have been better to keep the debate in one, centralized place? (Also Jarry1250 hasn't put any notice here about his new consultation. . . .) -- Klein zach 05:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)